MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4381326692 · doi:10.1101/2023.06.13.23291289

Lower Dynamic Cerebral Autoregulation following Acute Bout of Low-Volume High-Intensity Interval Exercise in Chronic Stroke Compared to Healthy Adults

2023· preprint· en· W4381326692 on OpenAlexaff
Alicen A. Whitaker, Stacey E. Aaron, Mark E. Chertoff, Patrice Brassard, Jake Buchanan, Katherine Nguyen, Eric D. Vidoni, Saniya Waghmare, Sarah M. Eickmeyer, Sandra A. Billinger

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesAmerican Heart AssociationNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsCerebral autoregulationMedicineCardiologyMiddle cerebral arteryBlood pressureAutoregulationHigh-intensity interval trainingStroke (engine)Cerebral blood flowInternal medicineAnesthesiaIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fluctuating blood pressure during high-intensity interval exercise (HIIT) may challenge dynamic cerebral autoregulation (dCA), specifically post-stroke after an injury to the cerebrovasculature. We hypothesized dCA would be attenuated at rest and during a sit-to-stand, immediately following and 30 min after HIIT in individuals post-stroke compared to age- and sex-matched controls (CON). HIIT switched every minute between 70% and 10% estimated maximal watts for 10 min. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and middle cerebral artery blood velocity (MCAv) were recorded. Resting dCA measured spontaneous fluctuations in MAP and MCAv via transfer function analysis. For sit-to-stand, time delay before an increase in cerebrovascular conductance index (CVCi = MCAv/MAP), rate of regulation, and %change in MCAv and MAP were measured. Twenty-two individuals post-stroke (age 60±12 yrs, 31±16 months) and twenty-four CON (age 60±13 yrs) completed the study. VLF gain (p=0.02, η 2 =0.18) and normalized gain (p=0.01, η 2 =0.43) had a group-by-time interaction, with CON improving immediately and 30 min after HIIT. Individuals post-stroke had impaired VLF phase (p=0.03, η 2 =0.22) immediately following HIIT compared to CON. We found no differences in the sit-to-stand. Our study showed lower resting dCA up to 30 min after HIIT in individuals post-stroke compared to CON while the sit-to-stand response was maintained.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.270 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→