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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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