Cited by 36Blood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Blood Pressure Regulation in Humans: Calculation of an “Error Signal” in Control of Sympathetic Nerve Activity

Open access
Wehrwein, Erica A., Joyner, Michael J., Hart, Emma C.J., Wallin, B. Gunnar, Karlsson, Tomas, Charkoudian, Nisha·2010·Hypertension

Abstract

Within an individual, diastolic blood pressure (DBP) is negatively related to sympathetic burst incidence, such that lower pressure is associated with high burst incidence. Our goal was to explore the use of a calculation of a DBP “error signal” in the control of muscle sympathetic nerve activity in men and women. Baseline muscle sympathetic nerve activity was measured in healthy young men (n=22) and women (n=28). Women had significantly lower muscle sympathetic nerve activity than men (29±3 versus 43±2 bursts per 100 heartbeats; P <0.05). For each individual, the DBP at which there is a 50% likelihood of a muscle sympathetic nerve activity burst, the “T50” value, was calculated. Mean DBP was subtracted from the T50 blood pressure as an approximate error signal for burst activation. Error signal was negative in both sexes, indicating that DBP in both sexes was higher than the DBP value associated with a 50% burst likelihood. However, average error signal was significantly larger in women (−4±2 mm Hg) than in men (−1±0 mm Hg; P <0.05 versus women). We conclude that women operate at a mean DBP greater than their T50 compared with men, and this may be a contributing factor to low basal muscle sympathetic nerve activity in women. The relationship between error signal and burst incidence may provide important insight into the control of muscle sympathetic nerve activity across sexes and in various populations.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/hypertensionaha.109.141739

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • An acute increase in diastolic or mean arterial blood pressure of 3-5 mmHg is usually experimentally sufficient to abolish muscle sympathetic nerve activity in healthy young subjects.

    “In this context, an acute increase in diastolic or mean arterial blood pressure of 3–5 mmHg is usually experimentally sufficient to abolish MSNA in healthy young subjects.50, 51”

    From Oral contraceptive use, muscle sympathetic nerve activity, and systemic hemodynamics in young women (2015) · cites this paper as [50]

    The Methods (Data Analysis; page unavailable) report that higher diastolic pressure is associated with a lower likelihood of MSNA bursts in healthy young subjects. The Discussion (Relevance of calculations; page unavailable) limits the findings to resting conditions, not an acute experimental pressure increase. It does not establish that a 3–5 mmHg rise in diastolic or mean arterial pressure usually abolishes MSNA. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [11]Finney D Probit Analysis Cambridge University Press 1971

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wehrwein, E. A., Joyner, M. J., Hart, E. C. J., Wallin, B. G., Karlsson, T., & Charkoudian, N.
Affiliations
Mayo Clinic (US)
Venue
Hypertension
Published
2010-02
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
264-269
ISSN
  • 0194-911X (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4563
OpenAlex
W2045092195
Cited by
36
References
15
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Hypertension (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (HL83947, R01HL083947)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (T32DK007352)
  • National Center for Research Resources (KL2RR024151, UL1RR024150)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Blood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
blood pressure regulation, diastolic blood pressure, muscle sympathetic nerve activity, error signal, sex differences, autonomic nervous system, baroreflex control
MeSH terms
Adult, Blood Flow Velocity, Blood Pressure, Blood Pressure Determination, Cardiac Output, Female, Hemodynamics, Humans, Male, Muscle, Smooth, Vascular, Reference Values, Retrospective Studies, Sex Factors, Sympathetic Nervous System, Vascular Resistance, Cohort Studies, Muscle, Skeletal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review