Comparison of two techniques for measuring pulse wave velocity in children (1156.5)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulse wave velocity (PWV) is used as an indicator of arterial stiffness. Carotid‐femoral PWV is the gold standard method. However, femoral pressure is difficult to measure in children and therefore carotid‐toe PWV has been used as an alternate method. Furthermore, measurement of carotid artery pressure requires highly skilled technicians, while participants are required to remain still over a time period, making this measure difficult to obtain in children. As a result, this study was undertaken to determine the effectiveness of using ECG R‐wave‐toe as an alternate method to measure PWV. Carotid‐toe PWV and R‐wave‐toe PWV were calculated for 31 healthy adolescents (16 females). Ten consecutive beats were averaged for each subject to determine the pulse transit time for each PWV method. PWV was calculated by dividing the pulse transit time by the distance travelled between the two recording sites for each method. A paired t‐test and Pearson correlation were conducted and significance was set at p<0.05. PWV estimated by the R‐wave‐toe technique was significantly lower than that estimated by the carotid‐toe technique (3.86 vs. 4.50 m/s, p<0.001). As well, a positive correlation was found between the two methods (r = 0.86, R 2 = 0.75, p<0.001). Although based on a small sample, these results suggest that R‐wave‐toe measurement technique may be a simple and useful alternate method to obtain PWV in children. Grant Funding Source : Supported by Canadian Institutes of Health Research
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".