MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Internal Jugular Vein Volume Pulsatility during Head‐Down Tilt and Lower Body Negative Pressure

2021· article· en· W3166175518 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew D. Robertson, Robert Amelard, Courtney A. Patterson, Richard L. Hughson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsMedicineCentral venous pressureSupine positionAnesthesiaVenous return curveBlood volumeDistensionCardiologyHead-Down TiltInternal jugular veinCardiac cycleBlood pressureInternal medicineHeart rateHemodynamicsSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of internal jugular vein (IJV) distension on blood volume pulsatility. We hypothesized that pulsatility would be enhanced during cephalad fluid shifts and attenuated during caudal fluid shifts. Thirteen young healthy participants (8/5 male/female) were assessed during supine rest (repeated); 3 and 6 degrees of head‐down tilt (HDT); and ‐20, ‐30, ‐40 mmHg of lower body negative pressure (LBNP) after at least 5 minutes in each condition. The order of the HDT and LBNP protocols was randomized. Right‐side IJV blood volume was estimated using widefield near‐infrared spectroscopy and quantified as jugular venous optical attenuation (JVA). Central venous pressure (CVP) was measured using a transducer attached to a catheter inserted into an antecubital vein in the right arm and corrected to the level of the heart. Participants were rightward tilted throughout to facilitate venous pressure measurements. Continuous signals were acquired for 30s in each condition and time‐synced at 60Hz. Volume and pressure pulsatility were calculated as the differences between peak and nadir points along the cardiac cycle in JVA and CVP, respectively. Pressure‐volume loops were created after ensemble averaging waveforms normalized to the cardiac cycle. Area of the pressure‐volume loops and slope of the pressure‐volume relationship during atrial filling (i.e., venous drainage) were assessed. Group mean JVA and CVP were highest during 6° HDT and lowest during ‐40 mmHg LBNP (see figure). Compared to baseline, JVA pulsatility was attenuated during ‐30 mmHg LBNP (P=0.048) and ‐40 mmHg LBNP (P=0.004) and was unchanged during each level of HDT (P>0.9). In contrast, CVP pulsatility was attenuated compared to baseline during ‐20, ‐30, and ‐40 mmHg LBNP (P<0.001) and was unchanged during each level of HDT (P>0.68). Area (P=0.088) and slope (P=0.269) of the pressure‐volume loop were unchanged across all conditions. In multiple regression analysis, loop area was associated directly with pressure amplitude (P<0.001) but not volume amplitude (P=0.130); model r 2 =0.69. These data suggest that, while volume pulsatility did decrease when venous distension was reduced by higher levels of LBNP, this was primarily a function of changes in pressure pulsatilty. IJV compliance appeared to be unchanged across a wide range of venous distension. This work has relevance to states where venous pressure and distension are altered, including heart failure and hemorrhagic shock.

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: none
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.258 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207