MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ambulatory Impedance Cardiography in Hypertension: A Validation Study

2008· article· en· W1992398537 on OpenAlexafffund
Judith McFetridge-Durdle, Faye S. Routledge, Monica Parry, CR Dean, Beatriz Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoDalhousie University
FundersIWK Health CentreDalhousie University
KeywordsImpedance cardiographyMedicineHemodynamicsSittingBlood pressureAmbulatoryAmbulatory blood pressureCardiologyStroke volumeCardiac outputInternal medicineHeart rateVascular resistance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The management of hypertension is improved by knowledge of the hemodynamics underlying blood pressure. Impedance Cardiography (ICG) provides data on a range of hemodynamic variables that affect blood pressure. However, ICG captures only fixed descriptions of hemodynamic characteristics. Improvements in ambulatory technology have led to the development of the Ambulatory Impedance Monitor (AIM) which records hemodynamic data during the activities of daily living. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the sensitivity of the AIM to detect hemodynamic changes associated with postural shift in persons with hypertension. Using a repeated measures cross-over design, sitting and standing hemodynamic measures were taken in seventeen persons with hypertension while wearing the AIM-BpTRU system designed for standard office use and the AIM-Spacelabs system designed for ambulatory monitoring. Both AIM-blood pressure monitoring systems detected significant changes from sitting to standing posture in heart rate (p=0.03), stroke volume (p=0.002), left ventricular ejection time (p<0.001), systemic vascular resistance (p=0.03) and diastolic blood pressure (p<0.001). Additionally, both systems generated measures of cardiac function that were positively correlated (p<0.001) and not significantly different (p>0.05). Our findings support previous work and demonstrate that the AIM provides valid and reliable estimates of cardiac function in persons with hypertension.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.654
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

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

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cardiovascular NursingSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207