MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Noradrenergic Blockade on Low‐frequency Oscillations of Human Skin Microcirculation.

2017· article· en· W4389022370 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew T. Del Pozzi, Matthew M. Mallette, Zachary T. Martin, Gary J. Hodges

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfrared Thermography in Medicine
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasomotionLaser Doppler velocimetryMedicineMicrodialysisForearmMicrocirculationHuman skinAnesthesiaSympathetic nervous systemAutonomic nervous systemInternal medicineCardiologyBlood flowHeart rateBlood pressureAnatomyCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Under normothermic conditions, the skin of the leg has higher sympathetic activity than the skin of the forearm; by contrast, after locally heating the skin to 42°C, the skin of the forearm has higher sympathetic activity. Work in human skin free flaps suggested that the vasomotion waves around 0.021–0.52 Hz corresponded to sympathetic activity. PURPOSE No study has verified the low‐frequency oscillations corresponding to sympathetic activity (0.021–0.052 Hz) in intact, healthy human skin. We hypothesized that sympathetic blockade would reduce the power in this low‐frequency band under normothermic conditions as well as in response to local skin heating. We examined the effects of acute, localized sympathetic nerve blockade on the low‐frequency oscillations of skin blood flow (SkBF) of the forearm and leg. METHODS Nine volunteers (6 male, 3 female) had 2 sites on each limb prepared with microdialysis fibers, one perfused with Lactated Ringer's (study vehicle, CTRL) the other bretylium tosylate (BT). Local skin heaters and laser‐Doppler flux (LDF) probes were used to control local temperature and assess SkBF. Skin vasomotion data were analysed using wavelet analysis of the LDF signal. LDF data were collected for 10 min at 33°C and for 35 min after locally heating to 42°C. Data are presented as wavelet amplitude in arbitrary units (au). RESULTS Baseline In the leg, neurogenic activity was reduced at BT treated sites (0.401 ± 0.049 au) compared to CTRL sites (0.569 ± 0.077 au; P = 0.04). There was no difference between the forearm CTRL and BT sites (P = 0.09). Nor were there differences between the forearm and leg CTRL (P = 0.69) and BT treated sites (P = 0.89). Onset of heating Neurogenic activity was significantly higher at CTRL sites of the forearm (0.812 ± 0.091 au) and leg (0.854 ± 0.112 au) than at BT treated forearm (0.471 ± 0.064 au; P = 0.03) or leg (0.503 ± 0.094 au; P = 0.01). There was no difference between forearm and leg CTRL (P = 0.78) or BT treated sites (P = 0.75). Prolonged Heating Neurogenic activity was higher at leg CTRL sites (1.272 ± 0.195 au) compared to BT treated sites (0.776 ± 0.152 au; P < 0.01). Forearm CTRL and the BT treated sites were not different (P = 0.08). Forearm CTRL and leg CTRL sites did not differ (P = 0.3) and neither did the BT treated sites (P = 0.57) CONCLUSION These data indicate that acute pharmacological blockade of the sympathetic nerves reduced the low‐frequency oscillations of SkBF of the forearm and leg reported to be associated with neural activity. During normothermia, neural activity was only reduced in the skin of the leg and not the forearm. Neurogenic activity was reduced at the onset of heating for both the forearm and leg at BT treated sites. Following prolonged local skin heating at 42°C, we found that neural activity of only the leg was reduced by noradrenergic blockade. These data suggest that the neural frequency band is representative of sympathetic activity. Furthermore, these data indicate that the skin of the leg has a higher noradrenergic component than that of the forearm which is congruent with previous in vivo human work. Support or Funding Information Ball State University Department of Kinesiology

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.287 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicInfrared Thermography in MedicineFrench-language works237,207