MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3175101389 · doi:10.1113/ep089629

Reliability of the hyperaemic response to passive leg movement in young, healthy women

2021· article· en· W3175101389 on OpenAlexafffund
Lindsay A. Lew, Kaitlyn R. Liu, Kyra E. Pyke

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular and exercise physiology
Canadian institutionsResponse Biomedical (Canada)Queen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Physical medicine and rehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyPsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NEW FINDINGS: What is the central question of this study? This is the first study to assess the day-to-day reliability of passive leg movement-induced hyperaemia (PLM-H), an index of lower-limb microvascular function, in young, healthy women. What is the main finding and its importance? Passive leg movement-induced hyperaemia demonstrated good day-to-day reliability, comparable to other common indices of endothelial function, supporting the use of PLM-H to assess lower-limb microvascular function in women. ABSTRACT: Passive leg movement-elicited hyperaemia (PLM-H) provides an index of lower-limb microvascular function. However, there is currently limited information regarding the reliability of PLM-H and no reliability information specific to women. The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability of PLM-H in women on two separate days. Seventeen young, healthy women [22 ± 3 years old (mean ± SD)] participated in two identical visits including three trials of PLM. Using duplex ultrasound, PLM-H was characterized by six indices: peak leg blood flow (LBF) and vascular conductance (LVC), peak change above baseline (Δpeak) for LBF and LVC, and area under the curve above baseline (AUC) during the first 60 s of PLM for LBF and LVC. The results demonstrated good day-to-day reliability of PLM-H characterized as peak LBF [r = 0.84, P < 0.001; intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.84; coefficient of variation (CV) = 13.2%], peak LVC (r = 0.82, P < 0.001; ICC = 0.79; CV = 14.4%), Δpeak LBF (r = 0.83, P < 0.001; ICC = 0.82; CV = 17.8%) and Δpeak LVC (r = 0.83, P < 0.001; ICC = 0.80; CV = 16.5%). Characterization of PLM as AUC demonstrated moderate day-to-day reliability: AUC LBF (r = 0.71, P < 0.05; ICC = 0.70; CV = 31.2%) and AUC LVC (r = 0.78, P < 0.001; ICC = 0.74; CV = 27.1%). In conclusion, this study demonstrates that PLM-H has good reliability as an index of microvascular function; however, characterization of PLM-H as peak, Δpeak LBF and LVC is more reliable than AUC.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular and exercise physiologyFrench-language works237,207