MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403244439 · doi:10.1113/ep091719

Examining the upper frequency limit of dynamic cerebral autoregulation: Considerations across the cardiac cycle during eucapnia

2024· article· en· W4403244439 on OpenAlexafffund
Joel S. Burma, Matthew G. Neill, Elizabeth K. S. Fletcher, Brooke Dennett, Nathan E. Johnson, Raelyn Javra, James K. Griffiths, Jonathan D. Smirl

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaHotchkiss Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersBranch Out Neurological FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation Brain CanadaUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsCardiac cycleAutoregulationMathematicsLimit (mathematics)Cerebral autoregulationCerebral arteriesMiddle cerebral arteryCardiologyInternal medicineMedicineMathematical analysisBlood pressureIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are differences within the literature regarding the upper frequency cut-off point of the dynamic cerebral autoregulation (CA) high-pass filter. The projection pursuit regression approach has demonstrated that the upper frequency limit is ∼0.07 Hz, whereas another approach [transfer function analysis (TFA) phase approaching zero] indicated a theoretical upper frequency limit for the high-pass filter of 0.24 Hz. We investigated how these limits accurately represent the CA upper frequency limit, in addition to extending earlier findings with respect to biological sexes and across the cardiac cycle. Sixteen participants (nine females and seven males) performed repeated squat-stand manoeuvres at frequencies of 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20 and 0.25 Hz, with insonation of the middle and posterior cerebral arteries. Linear regression modelling with adjustment for sex and order of squat completion was used to compared TFA gain and phase with 0.25 Hz (above the theoretical limit of CA). The upper frequency limit of CA with TFA gain was within the range of 0.05-0.10 Hz, whereas TFA phase was within the range of 0.20-0.25 Hz, and consistent between vessels, between sexes and across the cardiac cycle. Females displayed greater middle cerebral artery gain compared with males (all P < 0.047), and no phase differences were present (all P > 0.072). Although sex-specific differences were present for specific TFA metrics at a given frequency, the upper frequency limit of autoregulation was similar between cerebral conduit vessels, cardiac cycle phase and biological sex. Future work is warranted to determine whether an upper frequency limit exists with respect to hysteresis analyses.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.311

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular DisturbancesFrench-language works237,207