MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984716282 · doi:10.1088/0967-3334/33/6/881

Augmented blood pressure measurement through the noninvasive estimation of physiological arterial pressure variability

2012· article· en· W1984716282 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen Soueidan, Silu Chen, Hilmi R. Dajani, Miodrag Bolić, Voicu Groza

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiological Measurement · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic Control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsBlood pressureStandard deviationOutlierConfidence intervalPressure measurementMedicineInterval (graph theory)MathematicsStatisticsCardiologyInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current noninvasive blood pressure (BP) measurement methods, such as the oscillometric method, estimate the systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) at two random instants in time and do not take into account the natural variability in BP. The standard for automated BP devices sets a maximum allowable system error of ±5 mmHg, even though natural BP variability often exceeds these limits. This paper proposes a new approach using simultaneous recordings of the oscillometric and continuous arterial pulse waveforms to augment the conventional noninvasive measurement by providing (1) the mean SBP and DBP over the measurement interval and the associated confidence intervals of the mean, (2) the standard deviation of SBP and DBP over the measurement interval, which indicates the degree of fluctuation in BP and (3) an indicator as to whether or not the oscillometric reading is an outlier. Recordings with healthy subjects demonstrate the potential utility of this approach to characterize BP, to detect outlier measurements, and that it does not suffer from bias relative to the conventional oscillometric method.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiological MeasurementSame topicHeart Rate Variability and Autonomic ControlFrench-language works237,207