Estimating Pressure Reactivity Using Noninvasive Doppler-Based Systolic Flow Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study objective was to derive models that estimate the pressure reactivity index (PRx) using the noninvasive transcranial Doppler (TCD) based systolic flow index (Sx_a) and mean flow index (Mx_a), both based on mean arterial pressure, in traumatic brain injury (TBI). Using a retrospective database of 347 patients with TBI with intracranial pressure and TCD time series recordings, we derived PRx, Sx_a, and Mx_a. We first derived the autocorrelative structure of PRx based on: (A) autoregressive integrative moving average (ARIMA) modeling in representative patients, and (B) within sequential linear mixed effects (LME) models with various embedded ARIMA error structures for PRx for the entire population. Finally, we performed sequential LME models with embedded PRx ARIMA modeling to find the best model for estimating PRx using Sx_a and Mx_a. Model adequacy was assessed via normally distributed residual density. Model superiority was assessed via Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), log likelihood (LL), and analysis of variance testing between models. The most appropriate ARIMA structure for PRx in this population was (2,0,2). This was applied in sequential LME modeling. Two models were superior (employing random effects in the independent variables and intercept): (A) PRx ∼ Sx_a, and (B) PRx ∼ Sx_a + Mx_a. Correlation between observed and estimated PRx with these two models was: (A) 0.794 (p < 0.0001, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.788-0.799), and (B) 0.814 (p < 0.0001, 95% CI = 0.809-0.819), with acceptable agreement on Bland-Altman analysis. Through using linear mixed effects modeling and accounting for the ARIMA structure of PRx, one can estimate PRx using noninvasive TCD-based indices. We have described our first attempts at such modeling and PRx estimation, establishing the strong link between two aspects of cerebral autoregulation: measures of cerebral blood flow and those of pulsatile cerebral blood volume. Further work is required to validate.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".