MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046872367 · doi:10.1016/j.jfms.2004.12.003

Heart rate and heart rate variability of healthy cats in home and hospital environments

2005· article· en· W2046872367 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonathan A. Abbott

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Feline Medicine and Surgery · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Conditions and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsCATSMedicineHeart rateHeart rate variabilityCardiologyAmbulatoryInternal medicineElectrocardiographyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To investigate heart rate and its variability, a telemetry device was affixed to 16 healthy, young cats. Prior to inclusion in the study, cats were subject to echocardiographic examination. The heart rate (HR) when cats were restrained for echocardiography (HR(r)) was calculated from 4-5 consecutive RR intervals obtained from a simultaneously recorded electrocardiogram. Electrocardiographic data were then acquired by telemetry in a quiet room in the veterinary hospital (VTH) and later, in the owner's home (home). The ambulatory data were digitally sampled and the RR interval tachogram from a 4 min epoch subject to Fast Fourier Transform to yield measures of heart rate variability (HRV). Sinus arrhythmia was often observed in resting cats. Heart rates (bpm) expressed as mean (+/-SD) were: HRr: 187 (+/-25), HRVTH: 150 (+/-23), HR(home): 132 (+/-19); each of these rates was significantly different from the others. Significant differences in profiles of HRV suggested that sympathetic tone was higher (and parasympathetic tone lower) when cats were in the hospital.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations93
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Feline Medicine and SurgerySame topicCardiovascular Conditions and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207