Central Blood Pressure as an Index of Antihypertensive Control: Determinants and Potential Value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The measurement of central blood pressure has generated interest as a tool in predicting cardiovascular events. The purpose of this article is to review the meaning and measurement of the central blood pressure and consider its potential value as an index of the antihypertensive response. Indirect estimation of central aortic pressures is obtained by the study of the radial pulse wave compared with a central pulse wave contour measured at the carotid or femoral artery level. The sum of the forward pressure wave created by ventricular contraction and of the reflected pressure wave from the peripheral arterial system produce the peak systolic blood pressure in the aorta. Measurement of the peripheral reflected-wave contribution to aortic blood pressure can be quantified as the augmentation index. Also, the increase in the rapidity of this travelling wave can be measured as the pulse wave velocity. These 2 parameters are considered to be valid indices of the peripheral arterial stiffness. Along with the calculation of systolic and diastolic aortic pressures, these measurements can give a better understanding of the actual central blood pressure to which core organs like heart, brain, and kidneys are submitted. There is tantalizing evidence for the potential value of central blood pressure as a useful index of antihypertensive action, but until clear evidence is obtained, its use should continue to be considered exploratory.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".