Comparison of arterial elasticity measured in left and right arms using the HDI/Pulsewave™ CR-2000 Research System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Arterial elasticity is implicated as a risk factor for or a marker of cardiovascular disease. Current advances in non-invasive devices have now made it possible to measure arterial elasticity in an ambulatory setting. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether there is a difference in blood pressure and arterial elasticity measured in the right and the left arms. METHODS: Simultaneous measurements were performed with two HDI/Pulsewave CR-2000 Research CardioVascular Profiling Systems. The manufacturer recommends placing the blood pressure cuff on the left upper arm and the sensor on the skin overlying the right radial artery. We followed the manufacturer's recommendations and also placed both the cuff and the sensor on the same arm. Simultaneous measurements were made on both arms with both machines. The average of three measurements was used for each combination. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and large-artery and small-artery elasticity indices, were determined for each subject and used in the analysis. RESULTS: The subjects were 11 males and 9 females between 22 and 46 (33.5 +/- 7.4 years) years of age. There was no significant difference in the average difference for each test combination. CONCLUSION: Thus, when using the HDI/Pulsewave CR-2000 Research CardioVascular Profiling System, the blood pressure cuff and the sensor can be placed on either the same arm or opposite arms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".