MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149576032 · doi:10.1139/cjpp-2013-0010

Assessment of arterial stiffness using applanation tonometry

2013· review· en· W2149576032 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
David H. Kim, Branko Braam

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Alberta Hospital
FundersHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsApplanation tonometryArterial stiffnessPulse wave velocityPulse Wave AnalysisContext (archaeology)MedicineCardiologyInternal medicineBlood pressurePulse waveComputer scienceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Augmentation index (AIx) and pulse wave velocity (PWV) assess functional and structural aspects of the vascular wall and are independent markers of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Like blood pressure, many factors, genetic, structural, and physiological, affect AIx and PWV. AIx and PWV can be assessed noninvasively using applanation tonometry. The technique is simple, but comes with a number of practical and technical limitations that have not been well documented and (or) explored. This review considers pulse wave analysis in the context of cardiovascular disease, and considers its limitations. Data are presented indicating that the placement of the probe is critical, and that the amplitude of the obtained signal is related to the variability in measurements. On a more theoretical note, issues are discussed regarding the applied transfer functions that are built in the devices to assess central AIx from peripheral waveforms. Altogether, PWV and its analysis are useful additions to the arsenal of parameters that can be used to assess vascular health and to estimate vascular risk. Yet, our analysis underscores the necessity for precise operating procedures, and calls for transparency regarding the applied transfer functions of commercial devices.

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)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.350 · 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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Physiology and PharmacologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207