MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083296849 · doi:10.1016/s0895-7061(01)02319-6

Clinical applications of arterial stiffness; definitions and reference values

2002· review· en· W2083296849 on OpenAlexaff
M. F. O'Rourke, Jan A. Staessen, C. Vlachopoulos, D. Duprez, G.E. Plante

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineArterial stiffnessCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressureAortaPulse pressureStiffeningDiastoleStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arterial stiffening is the most important cause of increasing systolic and pulse pressure, and for decreasing diastolic pressure beyond 40 years of age. Stiffening affects predominantly the aorta and proximal elastic arteries, and to a lesser degree the peripheral muscular arteries. While conceptually a Windkessel model is the simplest way to visualize the cushioning function of arteries, this is not useful clinically under changing conditions when effects of wave reflection become prominent. Many measures have been applied to quantify stiffness, but all are approximations only, on account of the nonhomogeneous structure of the arterial wall, its variability in different locations, at different levels of distending pressure, and with changes in smooth muscle tone. This article summarizes the methods and indices used to estimate arterial stiffness, and provides values from a survey of the literature, followed by recommendations of an international group of workers in the field who attended the First Consensus Conference on Arterial Stiffness, which was held in Paris during 2000, under the chairmanship of M.E. Safar and E.D. Frohlich.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.004

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1,091
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of HypertensionSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207