MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214703968 · doi:10.1152/ajpheart.00567.2021

Physiological basis for longitudinal motion of the arterial wall

2022· review· en· W4214703968 on OpenAlexafffund
Chloe E. Athaide, Bart Spronck, Jason S. Au

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersEuropean CommissionNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeGovernment of Canada
KeywordsArterial wallContext (archaeology)Blood flowPsychologyNeuroscienceCardiologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As opposed to arterial distension in the radial plane, longitudinal wall motion (LWM) is a multiphasic and bidirectional displacement of the arterial wall in the anterograde (i.e., in the direction of blood flow) and retrograde (i.e., opposing direction of blood flow) directions. Although initially disregarded as imaging artifact, LWM has been consistently reported in ultrasound investigations in the past decade and is reproducible beat-to-beat, albeit with large interindividual variability across healthy and diseased populations. Emerging literature has sought to examine the mechanistic control of LWM to explain the shape and variability of the motion pattern but lacks considerations for key foundational vascular principles at the level of the arterial wall ultrastructure. The purpose of this review is to summarize the potential factors that underpin the causes and control of arterial LWM, spanning considerations from the arterial extracellular matrix to systems-level integrative theories. First, an overview of LWM and relevant aspects wall composition will be discussed, including major features of the multiphasic pattern, arterial wall extracellular components, tunica fiber orientations, and arterial longitudinal prestretch. Second, current theories on the systems-level physiological mechanisms driving LWM will be discussed in the context of available evidence including experimental human research, porcine studies, and mathematical models. Throughout, we discuss implications of these observations with suggestions for future priority research areas.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207