MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Cerebrovascular carbon dioxide reactivity is influenced by sex despite comparable hemodynamic and respiratory chemosensitivity in young fit individuals

2020· article· en· W3019304372 on OpenAlexaffabout
Audrey Drapeau, Sarah Imhoff, Lawrence Labrecque, Myriam Paquette, Olivier Blanc, Simon Malenfant, Patrice Brassard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCardiorespiratory fitnessMedicineHemodynamicsMiddle cerebral arteryCerebral blood flowBlood pressureHyperventilationTranscranial DopplerCardiologyInternal medicineHeart rateCerebral autoregulationRespiratory minute volumeAnesthesiaRespiratory systemAutoregulationIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cerebral blood flow (CBF) is generally higher in women compared to men at rest. Although accumulating evidence supports sex differences in CBF regulation, findings remain contradictory for dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) and cerebrovascular reactivity to carbon dioxide (CVR CO2 ). Cardiorespiratory fitness represents an indicator of cardiovascular health. However, we have recently reported that dCA is reduced in young fit men compared to controls, and that dCA is attenuated in young fit women compared to fit men. However, the influence of sex on CVR CO2 in these young fit individuals remains misunderstood. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of sex on CVR CO2 in young fit individuals. Changes in middle cerebral artery mean blood velocity (MCA vmean ; transcranial doppler), mean arterial pressure (MAP; photoplethysmography), heart rate (HR; ECG) and pulmonary ventilation (spirometer) were measured in 29 young fit individuals (women n=10, men n=19), in response to changes in end‐tidal partial pressure of carbon dioxide (P ET CO 2 ; gas analyzer) during the modified Duffin hyperoxic rebreathing test. Women were tested in the early follicular phase. CVR CO2 , as well as hemodynamic and ventilatory chemosensitivity, were characterized using linear regressions on the rebreathing portion of the test after the determined ventilatory recruitment threshold. While age was not different between groups (26 ± 6 vs. 27 ± 5 years, P = 0.92), height: (1.64 ± 0.06 vs. 1.77 ± 0.08 m; P < 0.0001), body weight (60 ± 6 vs. 72 ± 10 kg; P = 0.0009) and maximal oxygen uptake (48.4 ± 3.8 vs. 57.9 ± 6.8 mL −1 kg −1 min −1 ; P < 0.0001) were lower in women. At rest, MCA vmean (72 ± 8 cm/s vs. 62 ± 11 cm/s; P = 0.02) and HR (73 ± 8 vs. 64 ± 11 bpm; P = 0.02) were higher in women, whereas MAP was not different between groups (100 ± 19 vs. 97 ± 10 mm Hg; P = 0.73). CVR CO2 was higher in women compared to men, both in absolute ( 1.59 ± 0.78 vs. 0.35 ± 1.51 cm/s/mm Hg, P = 0.01) and normalized terms ( 2.19 ± 0.97 vs. 0.54 ± 2.41 %/mm Hg, P = 0.02). Hemodynamic and respiratory chemosensitivity responses during CO 2 rebreathing were not different between groups (all P > 0.05). These results indicate that the cerebrovasculature of young fit women is more sensitive to CO 2 than men despite comparable hemodynamic and ventilatory chemosensitivity responses. Support or Funding Information S.I., L.L. and S.M. have been supported by a doctoral training scholarship from the Fonds de recherche du Québec ‐ Santé (FRQS)

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→