Comparison of a three-quarter electrode band configuration with a full electrode band configuration for impedance cardiography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impedance cardiography is a technique commonly used in psychophysiological studies. However, concerns about the utility of full circumferential band electrodes (FB) have been raised. The current study was designed to compare FB with a three-quarter circumferential band configuration (PB). A total of 47 participants (66% female, mean [SD] age=20.4 [3.0] years) underwent 2 testing sessions, once using FB and once using PB. Session order was randomized and balanced. Each session consisted of 5 min of rest, math task, recovery, and cold pressor test. Average baseline and task pre-ejection period (PEP), stroke volume (SV), cardiac output (CO), heart rate (HR), blood pressure (BP), and total peripheral resistance (TPR) was calculated from impedance cardiography and blood pressure monitoring. Participants were are asked to rate measures of comfort after each session. There were no significant difference between the mean levels of PEP, SV, CO, HR, and TPR for the PB versus the FB configurations. However, both systolic BP and diastolic BP were higher during the FB session. Intraclass correlations were high (r(icc) =.63-.93) between PB and FB. Bland-Altman analyses revealed a low level of bias (≤5%) between the configurations. Based on limits of agreement between ±30%, there was equivalence in PEP between the 2 configurations, and SV, CO, and TPR were close to reaching equivalence. Participants clearly indicated greater comfort with the PB configuration compared to the FB. The current study provides incremental evidence that suggests a three-quarter PB configuration may be utilized for standard psychophysiological testing instead of the standard FB configuration. However, further studies are needed to validate the PB configuration against other techniques.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".