Signal-averaged resting sympathetic transduction of blood pressure: is it time to account for prevailing muscle sympathetic burst frequency?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calculating the blood pressure (BP) response to a burst of muscle sympathetic nerve activity (MSNA), termed sympathetic transduction, may be influenced by an individual’s resting burst frequency. We examined the relationships between sympathetic transduction and MSNA in 107 healthy males and females and developed a normalized sympathetic transduction metric to incorporate resting MSNA. Burst-triggered signal averaging was used to calculate the peak diastolic BP response following each MSNA burst (sympathetic transduction of BP) and following incorporation of MSNA burst cluster patterns and amplitudes (sympathetic transduction slope). MSNA burst frequency was negatively correlated with sympathetic transduction of BP ( r = −0.42; P < 0.01) and the sympathetic transduction slope ( r = −0.66; P < 0.01), independent of sex. MSNA burst amplitude was unrelated to sympathetic transduction of BP in males ( r = 0.04; P = 0.78), but positively correlated in females ( r = 0.44; P < 0.01) and with the sympathetic transduction slope in all participants ( r = 0.42; P < 0.01). To control for MSNA, the linear regression slope of the log-log relationship between sympathetic transduction and MSNA burst frequency was used as a correction exponent. In subanalysis of males (38 ± 10 vs. 14 ± 4 bursts/min) and females (28 ± 5 vs. 12 ± 4 bursts/min) with high versus low MSNA, sympathetic transduction of BP and sympathetic transduction slope were lower in participants with high MSNA (all P < 0.05). In contrast, normalized sympathetic transduction of BP and normalized sympathetic transduction slope were similar in males and females with high versus low MSNA (all P > 0.22). We propose that incorporating MSNA burst frequency into the calculation of sympathetic transduction will allow comparisons between participants with varying levels of resting MSNA.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".