MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

When is Muscle Sympathetic Nerve Activity ‘Abnormal’?

2020· article· en· W3019003014 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark B. Badrov, Daniel A. Keir, George Tomlinson, Catherine F. Notarius, Derek S. Kimmerly, Philip J. Millar, J. Kevin Shoemaker, John S. Floras

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of GuelphDalhousie UniversityUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMicroneurographyPercentileSupine positionCohortCardiorespiratory fitnessSympathetic nervous systemIncidence (geometry)Cardiovascular healthCardiologyInternal medicineDiseaseBlood pressureBaroreflexHeart rate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The sympathetic nervous system participates in both short‐ and long‐term cardiovascular regulation. The microneurographic technique, enabling in humans direct recordings from the populations of post‐ganglionic sympathetic neurons innervating the skeletal muscle vasculature (i.e. muscle sympathetic nerve activity; MSNA), has yielded key insights into mechanisms of sympathetic regulation of the circulation in health, and, importantly, its contributions to cardiovascular disease development and progression. Due to its invasive nature, as well as the technical challenges involved in site acquisition and burst quantification, its application has been limited primarily to trained investigators studying small, selected cohorts, rather than populations. In healthy individuals, MSNA burst frequency or burst incidence, as measured under supine resting conditions, exhibit considerable inter‐individual variability, yet are highly reproducible within individuals over time. However, such variability, as well as the limited data, has impaired the establishment of age‐ and sex‐dependent normative values. Therefore, we aimed to develop resting MSNA reference charts, representing MSNA percentile curves, in a large cohort of young and older men and women. Specifically, we retrospectively assembled a dataset of 654 healthy, unmedicated normotensive (<140/90 mmHg) individuals from four participating Canadian laboratories, including 396 men (aged 18–71 yrs) and 258 women (aged 18–81 yrs), in whom baseline resting MSNA was evaluated over a minimum of 5 min. Quantile regression was used to estimate the 5 th , 20 th , 50 th (i.e. median), 80 th , and 95 th percentiles for resting MSNA burst frequency and burst incidence in men and women as a function of age. Quantiles were parameterized as functions of age by both a one‐ and two‐term fractional polynomial model with power selected from a ladder of values (i.e. −2, −1, −0.5, 0.5, 1, 2, 3). Next, an iterative fitting approach was applied to the MSNA versus age data to determine the fractional coefficients and the combination of values for the two powers from the ladder that provided the greatest goodness of fit (i.e. lowest χ 2 ). The 5 th , 20 th , 50 th , 80 th , and 95 th percentiles for MSNA burst frequency and burst incidence in men and women as a function of age are displayed in the figure below. In conclusion, these MSNA percentile curves, developed from a large sample of men and women, provide age‐ and sex‐related reference values for resting MSNA levels in healthy, normotensive individuals, and, furthermore, by establishing 95% confidence limits, may help inform comparative studies of disease states referenced to age‐ and sex‐matched controls. Figure 1

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207