MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

In vivo assessment of blood pooling and muscle pump dynamics under orthostatic stress

2013· article· en· W3170221070 on OpenAlexaff
C.A.D. Leguy, Andrew P. Blaber, Jakob Kuemmel, Luis Beck, Jochen Zange, Jörn Rittweger

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureOrthostatic vital signsFemoral arteryOrthostatic intoleranceCardiologyBlood flowInternal medicineAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A better understanding of blood pooling to the lower limbs and muscle pumping (increasing venous return) is essential to prevent orthostatic intolerance. The goal of this study is to assess the dynamics of these physiological responses under orthostatic stress. Repeated 70 degrees Head Up Tilt (HUT) of 3 minutes were performed on a group of 15 healthy volunteers. After 1st and 2nd minute of HUT, the subjects performed a 3 s calf Muscle Contraction (MC) at 30% of maximal electromyographic activity. Calf muscles EMG, ECG and finger blood pressure were recorded continuously. Blood volume flow (BVF) of the femoral artery was assessed with ultrasound from 1 min before to 1 min after HUT. A peak BVF of 620 mL/min was measured after HUT, whereas peak BVF after MC reached 950 mL/min. Plateau BVF in the femoral artery during HUT increased slightly after the MC possibly due to a metabolic response of the leg muscle. Finally, mean arterial pressure immediately after tilting and after MC decreased. We therefore conclude that the muscle pump through its effect on venous pressure of the lower limbs is a fundamental aspect in blood pressure regulation during orthostatic stress.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicCardiovascular and exercise physiology→French-language works237,207→