MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970882842 · doi:10.1109/iembs.2011.6091595

Pulse arrival time is not an adequate surrogate for pulse transit time in terms of tracking diastolic pressure

2011· article· en· W1970882842 on OpenAlexaff
Guanqun Zhang, Da Xu, N. Bari Olivier, Ramakrishna Mukkamala

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransit timeArrival timePulse (music)Pulse pressurePulse waveWaveformBlood pressureComputer scienceMedicineInternal medicineTelecommunicationsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared pulse arrival time (PAT) and pulse transit time (PTT) in terms of their ability to track diastolic pressure (DP). We performed the comparison using high fidelity, invasive arterial waveforms recorded from six dogs during multiple interventions. On average, DP ranged from 40 to 106 mmHg and therefore varied widely. PAT and PTT were able to predict DP with average root-mean-squared-errors of 9.8 ± 5.8 mmHg and 5.7 ± 2.0 mmHg (p = 0.02). Thus, even though PAT is simpler to measure, we can only recommend using PTT for tracking DP.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207