Predictors of an abnormal postexercise ankle brachial index: Importance of the lowest ankle pressure in calculating the resting ankle brachial index
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The postexercise ankle-brachial index (ABI) is useful in patients with suspected peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and a normal resting ABI. Our objective was to determine the independent predictors of an abnormal postexercise ABI. HYPOTHESIS: We hypothesized that the lowest ankle systolic pressure to calculate the resting ABI would be associated with an abnormal post-exercise ABI. METHODS: Among 619 consecutive patients referred for suspected PAD, we calculated the postexercise ABI in patients with a normal resting ABI. An ABI <0.90 at rest was considered abnormal. We investigated 3 definitions of an abnormal postexercise ABI, defined as either <0.90, or >5% or >20% reduction compared with rest. RESULTS: Using multivariate analysis, the lowest ABI (calculated using the lowest and not the highest ankle systolic pressure) was consistently the most powerful independent predictor of an abnormal postexercise ABI. Patients with an abnormal lowest resting ABI were significantly more likely to have an abnormal postexercise ABI, as well as a significantly greater reduction in the ABI compared with rest. The lowest ABI had a high specificity (95%) but low sensitivity (82%) for a postexercise ABI <0.90. CONCLUSIONS: An abnormal lowest ABI (calculated with the lowest ankle systolic pressure) is the most important independent predictor of an abnormal ABI response to exercise in patients with a conventionally normal ABI. All such patients should be exercised and their ABI measured postexercise.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it