Validity and reliability of deriving the autoregulatory plateau through projection pursuit regression from driven methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To compare the construct validity and between-day reliability of projection pursuit regression (PPR) from oscillatory lower body negative pressure (OLBNP) and squat-stand maneuvers (SSMs). Nineteen participants completed 5 min of OLBNP and SSMs at driven frequencies of 0.05 and 0.10 Hz across two visits. Autoregulatory plateaus were derived at both point-estimates and across the cardiac cycle. Between-day reliability was assessed with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LOA), coefficient of variation (CoV), and smallest real differences. Construct validity between OLBNP-SSMs were quantified with Bland-Altman plots and Cohen's d. The expected autoregulatory curve with positive rising and negative falling slopes were present in only ~23% of the data. The between-day reliability for the ICCs were poor-to-good with the CoV estimates ranging from ~50% to 70%. The 95% LOA were very wide with an average spread of ~450% for OLBNP and ~350% for SSMs. Plateaus were larger from SSMs compared to OLBNPs (moderate-to-large effect sizes). The cerebral pressure-flow relationship is a complex regulatory process, and the "black-box" nature of this system can make it challenging to quantify. The current data reveals PPR analysis does not always elicit a clear-cut central plateau with distinctive rising/falling slopes.
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 | 0.034 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".