MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408745402 · doi:10.1139/apnm-2024-0048

Hot water immersion increases internal carotid artery shear rate but does not alter intracranial vascular reactivity to carbon dioxide

2025· article· en· W4408745402 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Morgan L. Worley, Courtney E. Wheelock, Jocelyn Stooks, Jacqueline Schwob, Brian Bratta, John J. Leddy, Riana R. Pryor, David Hostler, Blair D. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval Research
KeywordsMiddle cerebral arteryMedicineTranscranial DopplerInternal carotid arteryAnesthesiaPosterior cerebral arteryAnterior cerebral arteryCerebral arteriesHyperventilationCerebral blood flowCardiologyShear rateInternal medicineIschemia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute hot water immersion (HWI) increases cerebral blood flow, which may increase arterial shear rate and benefit cerebrovascular function. However, it is unclear whether HWI alters cerebral artery shear rate and cerebrovascular reactivity to carbon dioxide (CVRCO2). We tested the hypotheses that HWI (39 °C) increases extracranial artery shear rate and intracranial artery hypercapnic CVRCO2, but reduces hypocapnic CVRCO2 compared to temperate water immersion (TWI; 35 °C). Eighteen healthy adults completed two experimental visits. Middle and posterior cerebral artery blood velocities (transcranial Doppler; MCAv and PCAv) were continuously recorded. Right internal carotid artery (ICA) and vertebral artery (VA) shear rate were obtained via Doppler ultrasound. Hypocapnic and hypercapnic CVRCO2 were assessed in the middle cerebral artery (MCA) and posterior cerebral artery (PCA) during self-paced hyperventilation and during 30 s of 7% CO2 inhalation. Measures were completed pre-immersion (PRE) and at 1.0 °C increase in core temperature during HWI and time-matched during TWI. Data are reported as mean ± SD. There were no differences between conditions at PRE. MCAv (64 ± 12 vs. 55 ± 9 cm/s; P = 0.01) and PCAv (39 ± 7 vs. 29 ± 5 cm/s; P < 0.01) were greater in TWI versus HWI at the 1.0 °C time point. ICA shear rate was greater in HWI versus TWI at 1.0 °C (247 ± 51 vs. 180 ± 43 s−1; P < 0.01) but VA shear did not differ. Hypocapnic and hypercapnic CVRCO2 in the MCA and PCA did not differ between conditions. Compared to TWI, MCAv and PCAv are lower in HWI, but HWI augments shear rate in the ICA, which may be beneficial for cerebrovascular health if done recurrently.

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 score0.006

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism→Same topicTraumatic Brain Injury and Neurovascular Disturbances→French-language works237,207→