MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116552836 · doi:10.3109/10641963.2010.531839

Individual Assessment of Inherent Arterial Stiffness Using Nomogram and Pulse Wave Velocity Index: The Ohasama Study

2011· article· en· W2116552836 on OpenAlexaff
Rieko Hatanaka, Taku Obara, Daisuke Watabe, Atsushi Kimura, Tomohiro Hanazawa, Hiromi Ohba, Tomofumi Ishikawa, Tomoyuki Aikawa, Azusa Hara, Hirohito Metoki, Kei Asayama, Masahiro Kikuya, Takayoshi Ohkubo, Kazuhito Totsune, Yutaka Imai

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Hypertension · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArterial stiffnessPulse wave velocityNomogramPulse Wave AnalysisMedicineIndex (typography)CardiologyPulse (music)Wave velocityInternal medicineBiomedical engineeringBlood pressurePhysicsMaterials scienceComposite materialOpticsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measured the brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV) in 491 normotensives and determined the "PWV index" (measured baPWV-theoretical baPWV) in 491 normotensives and 83 controlled hypertensives. Linear regression analysis revealed that the theoretical baPWV (cm/sec) was 0.21 × age(2) (years(2))-13.73 × age (years) + 0.05 × mean arterial pressure(2) (mmHg(2)) + 3.95 × heart rate (bpm) + 36.49 × gender (1 male; 0 female) + 733 (R(2) = 0.53). The calculated PWV index was significantly higher in 13 smokers than 70 nonsmokers among controlled hypertensives. The calculated PWV index might provide more precise information about inherent arterial stiffness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.189
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental HypertensionSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207