Tracer Kinetics of Forearm Endothelial Function: Comparison of an Empirical Method and a Quantitative Modeling Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forearm Endothelial Function (FEF) is a marker that has been shown to discriminate patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). FEF has been assessed using several parameters: the Rate of Uptake Ratio (RUR), EWUR (Elbow-to-Wrist Uptake Ratio) and EWRUR (Elbow-to-Wrist Relative Uptake Ratio). However, the modeling functions of FEF require more robust models. The present study was designed to compare an empirical method with quantitative modeling techniques to better estimate the physiological parameters and understand the complex dynamic processes. The fitted time activity curves of the forearms, estimating blood and muscle components, were assessed using both an empirical method and a two-compartment model. Although correlational analyses suggested a good correlation between the methods for RUR (r=.90) and EWUR (r=.79), but not EWRUR (r=.34), Altman-Bland plots found poor agreement between the methods for all 3 parameters. These results indicate that there is a large discrepancy between the empirical and computational method for FEF. Further work is needed to establish the physiological and mathematical validity of the 2 modeling methods.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".