Frequency response of implantable blood pressure telemetry systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Measurement of blood pressure via telemetry in a variety of animal species has become an indispensable part of cardiovascular physiology, drug development and safety pharmacology. 2. These telemetry systems use fluid-filled catheters, which differ from commonly encountered indwelling catheters by virtue of their short length, high durometer, variable inner diameter and the use of a gel interface at the distal tip. 3. Despite the widespread use of blood pressure telemetry, there is little information describing the frequency response of these systems. The frequency response is of importance because it determines how well the waveform dynamics, such as pulse pressure, are captured. 4. For this reason, we measured the frequency responses of commonly used telemeters manufactured by Data Sciences International (St Paul, MN, USA; namely PA-C10, PA-C40 and PA-D70) and Telemetry Research (TR43P). The mean (+/- SEM) -3 dB frequencies measured for the PA-C10, PA-C40, PA-D70 and TR43P telemeters were 57 +/- 2 Hz, 40 +/- 6 Hz, 32 +/- 2 Hz and 173 +/- 3 Hz, respectively. 5. Simulation of the devices' dynamic performance by applying their frequency responses to a high-fidelity recording of arterial pressure demonstrated that the devices have sufficient bandwidth to accurately record arterial waveform dynamics. Experiments were also performed to determine how routine laboratory use and maintenance of the catheter affects the frequency response of the telemeters. Provided no air bubbles were introduced, these showed that the telemeters' frequency responses were robust to the maintenance procedures of tip removal and gel application. 6. The frequency response measurements, combined with simulation results, demonstrate that the systems tested have adequate dynamic performance to record arterial pressure.
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) | 0.000 | 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".