Cutaneous Vascular Conductance Is Not Altered By Carotid Baroreceptor Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical stimulation of the carotid sinus nerve failed to elicit reproducible changes in skin sympathetic nerve activity. Furthermore, average cutaneous vascular conductance (CVC) at the end of 3 minutes of repeated 300ms R-wave triggered carotid baroreceptor stimulation was unchanged compared to a pre-stimulus period. However, it remains unknown whether longer duration (5sec) carotid baroreceptor stimulation modulates CVC. PURPOSE To test the hypothesis that unloading of the carotid baroreceptors via repetitive square-wave neck pressure (NP) alters CVC in normothermic resting humans. METHODS In six subjects (age, 27±2), integrated laser Doppler flowmeter probes were attached to the skin at the mid-thigh. CVC was identified from the ratio of skin blood flux and arterial blood pressure. NP (+40 Torr) was applied in trains of 5sec NP followed by 5sec release of NP, repeatedly for 5 minutes. The resulting peaks and valleys in arterial blood pressure and CVC for each 10sec train (i.e. CVC at the blood pressure peaks and CVC at blood pressure valleys) were identified and statistically compared using a paired t-test. RESULTS Increases (108±10 mmHg) and decreases (96±12 mmHg) in mean arterial pressure in response to NP, were significantly different (P < 0.05). However, calculated CVC was not different when blood pressure was elevated (0.10±0.05 CVC units) relative to when blood pressure was reduced (0.09±0.01 CVC units; P=0.08). The absence of a change in CVC indicates the cutaneous vasculature is not responsive to carotid baroreceptor unloading when these values are assessed dynamically during fluctuations in arterial blood pressure. CONCLUSION These findings confirm prior observations that the carotid baroreflex does not exhibit control of skin blood flow in resting normothermic humans.
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".