Model Simulation of Forearm Hyperaemic Reactivity
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
Forearm hyperaemic reactivity (FHR) has been proposed as a novel noninvasive method for discriminating patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, the modeling functions of FHR require more robust models. The present study was designed to develop quantitative modeling techniques to better estimate the physiology of this model. The fitted time activity curves of the hyperaemic arm of non- CVD participants, using blood and muscle uptake, were obtained in the 2-compartment model with the mean R 2 =0.913±0.018. However, for CVD patients, the 2- compartment model yielded a mean R 2 =0.844±0.018, so a 3-compartment model was used. This model generated mean R 2 of 0.982±0.002 for non-CVD participants and 0.979±0.002 for CVD patients. It is believed that 3- compartment model provides estimates of the activity in the blood, in the interstitial space or cytoplasm, and in the mitochondria. The 2-compartment model provides good fits for FHR in non-CVD participants but not CVD patients. Alternatively, it would seem that the 3-compartment model provides good fits for both groups. These results should help us optimize the predictive values of the FHR test, infer pathological components of the disease and, ultimately improve the patient risk stratification.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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