MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cerebral Blood Flow Dynamics in Neurogenic Orthostatic Hypotension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2024· review· en· W4404597009 on OpenAlexaff
Jacquie Baker, Paul A. Beach, Shaun Ranada, Jennifer S. Gewandter, Can Ozan Tan, Roy Freeman, Satish R. Raj

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticOrthostatic vital signsCerebral blood flowCerebral autoregulationSubclinical infectionCardiologySupine positionBlood pressureInternal medicineAutoregulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) causes pathological falls in standing blood pressure that may or may not be symptomatic. nOH also raises the risk of poor neurological outcomes irrespective of symptom presence, possibly reflecting subclinical cerebral hypoperfusion. Dynamic changes in cerebral blood flow velocity (CBFv) help infer how blood pressure fluctuations influence CBFv and cerebral autoregulation. Whether CBFv is impacted in nOH relative to related conditions without nOH and healthy controls (HC) remains unresolved. Whether nOH symptoms reflect greater CBFv falls is also unclear. This review aimed to compare CBFv between nOH and HC, nOH and disease-matched controls (eg, Parkinson disease±nOH), and between symptomatic and asymptomatic nOH. METHODS: Embase and MEDLINE were searched up to April 2024. Means, SDs, and sample sizes for supine and upright CBFv were extracted to generate standardized effect sizes (Hedge g). Random-effects modeling compared postintervention between-group effect sizes. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included for review. Thirteen studies were suitable for meta-analysis comparing nOH to HC, 2 comparing disease-matched controls to nOH and to HC, and 3 for symptomatic comparisons. Compared with HC, nOH had larger drops in CBFv (Hedge g, −0.64 [95% CI, −0.85 to −0.44]; P <0.001). CBFv falls between nOH and disease-matched controls were similar ( P =0.17). Symptomatic nOH had larger CBFv drops (Hedge g, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.212–1.461]; P =0.009) than asymptomatic nOH. CONCLUSIONS: nOH causes significant orthostatic reductions in CBFv compared with HC, and symptomatic patients experience greater falls in CBFv than asymptomatic patients. Recognizing the clinical implications of CBFv in nOH is crucial for mitigating adverse outcomes.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertensionSame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207