MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178117389 · doi:10.1016/j.cccb.2021.100024

Longitudinal changes in the control mechanisms for blood pressure and cerebral blood flow in Alzheimer's disease: Secondary results of a randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3178117389 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Rianne A.A. de Heus, Daan L. K. de Jong, Brian Lawlor, Jurgen A.H.R. Claassen

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Circulation - Cognition and Behavior · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFP7 HealthRadboud Universitair Medisch CentrumAlzheimer NederlandAlzheimer SocietyAlzheimer's Drug Discovery Foundation
KeywordsCerebral blood flowBaroreflexMedicineBlood pressureCardiologyOrthostatic vital signsCerebral autoregulationInternal medicineHeart rateHypercapniaRandomized controlled trialHemodynamicsBlood flowAutoregulationAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA) and baroreflex sensitivity (BRS) are key mechanisms involved in the homeostasis of blood pressure (BP) and cerebral blood flow. We assessed changes in these mechanisms in Alzheimer's disease (AD) during a 1.5 year follow-up. In this secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial we measured beat-to-beat BP, heart rate, and cerebral blood flow velocity at baseline, 0.5 and 1.5 years, during: rest (spontaneous oscillations), repeated sit-stand maneuvers (induced oscillations), an orthostatic challenge, and hypo- and hypercapnia. dCA was estimated using transfer function analysis and the autoregulatory index on spontaneous and induced oscillations. BRS was estimated by calculating the heart rate response to BP changes during induced oscillations. Linear mixed models were used to assess changes over time. 56 patients were included (mean age:73 ± 6 years, 57% female). BRS did not change over time. dCA parameters showed small changes after 0.5 years, suggestive of a reduction in efficiency (e.g. higher gain [linear mixed effect model: B = 0.09, SE = 0.03, P = 0.008] and lower phase [B = -9.7, SE= 3.2, P = 0.004] in the very low frequency domain, and lower autoregulatory index during induced oscillations [B = -0.69, SE = 0.26, P = 0.010]). These changes did not show further progression after 1.5 years of follow-up. In this sample of patients with dementia due to AD we found no evidence that dCA or BRS become impaired during AD progression. This paves the way for further studies that investigate the safety and benefits of antihypertensive treatment in patients with AD.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral Circulation - Cognition and BehaviorSame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207