MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Limb specific differences in vasomotion response to varying rates of local heating

2016· article· en· W4389026201 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew T. Del Pozzi, James T. Miller, Gary J. Hodges

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVasomotionForearmVasodilationMedicineMyogenic contractionInternal medicineCardiologySkin temperatureChemistryEndocrinologyAnatomyBiomedical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined skin blood flow (SkBF) and vasomotion in the forearm and leg using laser‐Doppler fluxmetry (LDF) and spectral analysis to investigate endothelial (0.0095 – 0.021 Hz), sympathetic (0.021 – 0.052 Hz), and myogenic (0.052 – 0.145 Hz) activity in response to slow (0.1°C·10 s −1 ) and fast (0.5°C·10 s −1 ) local heating. Based on previous investigations we hypothesized that both limbs would respond with higher initial and sustained vasodilator activity in response to the fast‐rate of heating. Secondly, we hypothesized that the vasomotion responses would differ between the forearm (greater sympathetic activity) and the leg (greater endothelial activity). At 33°C (thermonuetral) endothelial activity was higher in the legs than the forearms ( P ≤ 0.02). Fast‐heating increased SkBF more than slow heating in both the forearm (169 ± 30 mV vs. 151 ± 28 mV; P = 0.037) and the leg (159 ± 32 mV vs. 130 ± 12 mV; P = 0.002). At onset of 42°C, endothelial activity was increased in both regions during the fast‐heating protocol ( P = 0.009 forearm; P = 0.02 leg). There was greater sympathetic activity observed in the forearm (7.8825 mV 2 /Hz) than the leg (2.5 mV 2 /Hz) during the first 5 min of the fast‐heating ( P = 0.004) protocol. With prolonged heating (42°C for 35 min), endothelial activity was higher following fast heating compared to slow heating in both the forearm (11.855 vs . 4.828 mV 2 /Hz; P = 0.01) and leg (9.338 vs . 4.319 mV 2 /Hz; P = 0.011). In the skin of the forearm compared to the leg, endothelial (11.855 vs . 9.338 mV 2 /Hz; P = 0.047), myogenic (1.6055 vs . 1.2305 mV 2 /Hz; P = 0.049), and sympathetic (9.126 vs . 5.526 mV 2 /Hz; P = 0.046) activity were higher for the fast heating protocol. These results confirm regional differences in the response to local heating and suggest that the increase in SkBF in response to rapid local heating at both the forearm and leg sites is due to increased endothelial and sympathetic activity. Support or Funding Information none

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.245 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207