Integrated Dynamic Autonomic and Cardiovascular Regulation during Postural Transitions in Older Adults Living with Frailty: A Systematic Review Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults often experience episodes of a sudden drop in blood pressure when standing, known as orthostatic hypotension (OH). OH is associated with an increased risk of life-threatening health problems, falls, and death. Although OH has been studied in older adults, the integrated dynamic autonomic and cardiovascular regulation during postural transitions in older adults with frailty remains scarce and poorly understood. The primary aim of this systematic review is to determine the association between how active (e.g., lie-to-stand) and passive (head-up tilt) postural transitions affect the dynamic integrated autonomic and cardiovascular regulatory responses, comparing older adults with different levels of frailty (non-frail, pre-frail, or frail). A second aim is to perform a meta-analysis to compare autonomic and cardiovascular responses during active postural transitions in non-frail, pre-frail, and frail older adults. The systematic review will be outlined according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. The meta-analysis will generate estimates of the comparative autonomic and cardiovascular responses after active postural transitions in adults who are non-frail, pre-frail, and frail. This systematic review will provide critical information on how integrated dynamic autonomic and cardiovascular regulation occurs during postural transitions in older adults with different frailty statuses.
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 | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.004 |
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".