Comparative Study on Tube-Load Modeling of Arterial Hemodynamics in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we assess the validity of two alternative tube-load models for describing the relationship between central aortic and peripheral arterial blood pressure (BP) waveforms in humans. In particular, a single-tube (1-TL) model and a serially connected two-tube (2-TL) model, both terminated with a Windkessel load, are considered as candidate representations of central aortic-peripheral arterial path. Using the central aortic, radial and femoral BP waveform data collected from eight human subjects undergoing coronary artery bypass graft with cardiopulmonary bypass procedure, the fidelity of the tube-load models was quantified and compared with each other. Both models could fit the central aortic-radial and central aortic-femoral BP waveform pairs effectively. Specifically, the models could estimate pulse travel time (PTT) accurately, and the model-derived frequency response was also close to the empirical transfer function estimate obtained directly from the central aortic and peripheral BP waveform data. However, 2-TL model was consistently superior to 1-TL model with statistical significance as far as the accuracy of the central aortic BP waveform was concerned. Indeed, the average waveform RMSE was 2.52 mmHg versus 3.24 mmHg for 2-TL and 1-TL models, respectively (p < 0.05); the r² value between measured and estimated central aortic BP waveforms was 0.96 and 0.93 for 2-TL and 1-TL models, respectively (p < 0.05). We concluded that the tube-load models considered in this paper are valid representations that can accurately reproduce central aortic-radial/femoral BP waveform relationships in humans, although the 2-TL model is preferred if an accurate central aortic BP waveform is highly desired.
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".