MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effects of Sustained Hypobaric Hypoxia on Amplitude of Forced Hemodynamic Oscillations During Central Hypovolemia

2022· article· en· W4225380128 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Garen K. Anderson, Alexander Rosenberg, Haley Barnes, Jordan J. Bird, Brandon Pentz, Britta R. Byman, Nicholas Jendzjowsky, Richard H. Wilson, Trevor A. Day, Caroline A. Rickards

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryMount Royal University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsHypovolemiaHemodynamicsHypoxia (environmental)AnesthesiaMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineChemistryOxygen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Forcing oscillations in arterial pressure and cerebral blood flow at 0.1 Hz during simulated hemorrhage protects cerebral oxygenation at both low and high altitude. Arterial pressure oscillations at 0.1 Hz are endogenously driven by rhythmic fluctuations in sympathetic nerve activity. As hypobaric hypoxia increases basal sympathetic activity, we hypothesize that the amplitude of forced oscillations in arterial pressure and cerebral blood flow during simulated hemorrhage will be greater at high altitude compared to low altitude. Methods 8 healthy human participants (4 M, 24.7 ± 4.1 y; 4 F, 34.3 ± 8.3 y) underwent a hypovolemic oscillatory lower body negative pressure (OLBNP) protocol, where chamber pressure reduced to ‐60 mmHg then oscillated every 5‐s between ‐30 mmHg and ‐90 mmHg over 10‐min (0.1 Hz). This protocol was performed at both low altitude (LA; Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 1045 m) and high altitude (HA; White Mountain, California, USA; 3800 m). Mean arterial pressure (MAP), mean middle cerebral artery velocity (MCAv), and cerebral tissue oxygenation (ScO 2 ) were recorded continuously. Frequency analysis (via continuous wavelet transform) was used to quantify oscillations in MAP and mean MCAv at ~0.1 Hz. Data were analyzed with linear mixed‐models and paired t‐tests. All data are represented as mean ± SD. Results Baseline amplitude of oscillations were similar between HA and LA for MAP (1.9 ± 0.6 mmHg vs. 1.2 ± 0.5 mmHg; P = 0.47) and mean MCAv (0.9 ± 0.4 cm/s vs. 1.1 ± 0.3 cm/s; P = 0.91). Oscillatory amplitudes increased with 0.1 Hz OLBNP and altitude for MAP (ANOVA main effect, OLBNP: P < 0.001, Altitude: P = 0.007) and mean MCAv (ANOVA main effect, OLBNP: P = 0.002, Altitude: P = 0.008). Amplitude of oscillations during OLBNP were greater at HA for both MAP (4.0 ± 2.1 mmHgvs. 2.6 ± 1.4 mmHg, P = 0.05) and mean MCAv (2.4 ± 1.1 cm/svs. 0.9 ± 0.4 cm/s; P = 0.01). The relative (%∆) decrease in ScO 2 was not different between HA and LA (‐0.63 ± 0.92 % vs. ‐2.56 ± 2.61 %, P = 0.11). Conclusions Oscillatory amplitudes at 0.1 Hz in both MAP and mean MCAv increased during OLBNP at high altitude. This effect may be due, in part, to the sympathoexcitatory stimulus of hypobaric hypoxia, and does not alter the protection of cerebral tissue oxygenation in this environment.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.224 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation→French-language works237,207→