Cardiovascular response to postural perturbations of different intensities in healthy young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to regain control of balance is vital in limiting falls and injuries. Little is known regarding how the autonomic nervous system responds during recovery from balance perturbations of different intensities. The purpose of this study was to examine the cardiovascular response following a standing balance perturbation of varying intensities, quantify cardiac baroreflex sensitivity (cBRS) during standing perturbations, and to establish the stability of the cardiac baroreflex during quiet standing before and after balance disturbances. Twenty healthy participants experienced three different perturbation intensity conditions that each included 25 brief posteriorly-directed perturbations, 8-10 s apart. Three perturbation intensity conditions (low, medium, high) were given in random order. Physiological data were collected in quiet stance for 5 min before testing (Baseline) and again after the perturbation conditions (Recovery) to examine baroreflex stability. Beat-to-beat heart rate (HR) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) analysis post-perturbation indicated an immediate acceleration of the HR for 1-2 s, with elevated SBP 4-5 s post-perturbation. Heart rate changes were greatest in the medium (p = 0.035) and high (p = 0.012) intensities compared to low, while there were no intensity-dependent changes in SBP. The cBRS was not intensity-dependent (p = 0.402) but when perturbation conditions were combined, cBRS was elevated compared to Baseline (p = 0.046). The stability of baseline cBRS was excellent (ICC = 0.896) between quiet standing conditions. In summary, HR, but not SBP or cBRS were intensity-specific during postural perturbations. This was the first study to examine cardiovascular response and cBRS to postural perturbations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".