ArticlePhysiological reports2024
Validity and reliability of deriving the autoregulatory plateau through projection pursuit regression from driven methods.
Article in Physiological reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Examining the upper frequency limit of dynamic cerebral autoregulation: Considerations across the cardiac cycle during eucapnia.Experimental physiology · 2024Article
- Validity and reliability of deriving the autoregulatory plateau through projection pursuit regression from driven methods.Physiological reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.