Aortic blood pressure measured via EIT: investigation of different measurement settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) allows the measurement of intra-thoracic impedance changes related to cardiovascular activity. As a safe and low-cost imaging modality, EIT is an appealing candidate for non-invasive and continuous haemodynamic monitoring. EIT has recently been shown to allow the assessment of aortic blood pressure via the estimation of the aortic pulse arrival time (PAT). However, finding the aortic signal within EIT image sequences is a challenging task: the signal has a small amplitude and is difficult to locate due to the small size of the aorta and the inherent low spatial resolution of EIT. In order to most reliably detect the aortic signal, our objective was to understand the effect of EIT measurement settings (electrode belt placement, reconstruction algorithm). This paper investigates the influence of three transversal belt placements and two commonly-used difference reconstruction algorithms (Gauss-Newton and GREIT) on the measurement of aortic signals in view of aortic blood pressure estimation via EIT. A magnetic resonance imaging based three-dimensional finite element model of the haemodynamic bio-impedance properties of the human thorax was created. Two simulation experiments were performed with the aim to (1) evaluate the timing error in aortic PAT estimation and (2) quantify the strength of the aortic signal in each pixel of the EIT image sequences. Both experiments reveal better performance for images reconstructed with Gauss-Newton (with a noise figure of 0.5 or above) and a belt placement at the height of the heart or higher. According to the noise-free scenarios simulated, the uncertainty in the analysis of the aortic EIT signal is expected to induce blood pressure errors of at least ± 1.4 mmHg.
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 | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".