MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4296168594 · doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.977772

Cardiovascular and cerebrovascular responses to urodynamics testing after spinal cord injury: The influence of autonomic injury

2022· article· en· W4296168594 on OpenAlexafffund
Inderjeet S. Sahota, Vera-Ellen M. Lucci, Maureen S. McGrath, H. J. C. Ravensbergen, Victoria E. Claydon

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Physiology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpinal Cord Injury Research
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineAutonomic dysreflexiaSpinal cord injurySupine positionBlood pressureCardiologyHeart rateBradycardiaHeart rate variabilityInternal medicineAnesthesiaAutonomic nervous systemSpinal cord

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Autonomic dysfunction is a prominent concern following spinal cord injury (SCI). In particular, autonomic dysreflexia (AD; paroxysmal hypertension and concurrent bradycardia in response to sensory stimuli below the level of injury) is common in autonomically-complete injuries at or above T6. AD is currently defined as a >20 mmHg increase in systolic arterial pressure (SAP) from baseline, without heart rate (HR) criteria. Urodynamics testing (UDS) is performed routinely after SCI to monitor urological sequelae, often provoking AD. We, therefore, aimed to assess the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular responses to UDS and their association with autonomic injury in individuals with chronic (>1 year) SCI. Following blood draw (plasma norepinephrine [NE]), continuous SAP, HR, and middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity (MCAv) were recorded at baseline (10-minute supine), during standard clinical UDS, and recovery (10-minute supine) (n = 22, age 41.1 ± 2 years, 15 male). Low frequency variability in systolic arterial pressure (LF SAP; a marker of sympathetic modulation of blood pressure) and cerebral resistance were determined. High-level injury (≥T6) with blunted/absent LF SAP (<1.0 mmHg2) and/or low plasma NE (<0.56 nmol•L−1) indicated autonomically-complete injury. Known electrocardiographic markers of atrial (p-wave duration variability) and ventricular arrhythmia (T-peak–T-end variability) were evaluated at baseline and during UDS. Nine participants were determined as autonomically-complete, yet 20 participants had increased SAP >20 mmHg during UDS. Qualitative autonomic assessment did not discriminate autonomic injury. Maximum SAP was higher in autonomically-complete injuries (207.1 ± 2.3 mmHg) than autonomically-incomplete injuries (165.9 ± 5.3 mmHg) during UDS (p < 0.001). HR during UDS was reduced compared to baseline (p = 0.056) and recovery (p = 0.048) only in autonomically-complete lesions. MCAv was not different between groups or phases (all p > 0.05). Cerebrovascular resistance index was increased during UDS in autonomically-complete injuries compared to baseline (p < 0.001) and recovery (p < 0.001) reflecting intact cerebral autoregulation. Risk for both atrial and ventricular arrhythmia increased during UDS compared to baseline (p < 0.05), particularly in autonomically-complete injuries (p < 0.05). UDS is recommended yearly in chronic SCI but is associated with profound AD and an increased risk of arrhythmia, highlighting the need for continued monitoring during UDS. Our data also highlight the need for HR criteria in the definition of AD and the need for quantitative consideration of autonomic function after SCI.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PhysiologySame topicSpinal Cord Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207