Validity and reliability of carotid-toe pulse wave velocity as a measure of arterial stiffness in healthy individuals: Comparison to carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The present investigation evaluated the validity and reliability of carotidtoe PWV (ctPWV) as a non-intrusive measure of systemic arterial stiffness in healthy young adults.Methods: The Validity Trial examined the association and agreement between cfPWV and ctPWV in 33 adults (24 Æ 2 years; 14 females), while the Reliability Trial assessed the variability in cfPWV and ctPWV in 13 adults (22 Æ 2 years; 5 females) over repeat visits.Proximal pulse waves were acquired (applanation tonometry) from the left common carotid (CCA) for both measures, while distal pulse waves were acquired from the left femoral artery (applanation tonometry) and the second left toe (pulse oximeter) for cfPWV and ctPWV, respectively.Results: cfPWV (5.3 Æ 0.7, 3.9e6.5 m/s) and ctPWV (5.4 Æ 0.5, 4.6e6.3m/s) demonstrated a moderate-to-strong positive linear correlation (r Z 0.79, P < 0.01) and a strong intra-class correlation (ICC; ICC Z 0.86, P < 0.01).The BlandeAltman plot demonstrated agreement between cfPWV and ctPWV with no fixed bias (0.1 m/s, Æ 2SD: À0.8 to 0.9 m/s, P > 0.05) and all data points falling within Æ2 SD of the mean difference between measures.cfPWV and ctPWV demonstrated reliability across visits as evidenced by low coefficients of variation (cfPWV: 3.4 Æ 2.6%, ctPWV: 2.6 Æ 2.5%) and strong ICCs (cfPWV: ICC Z 0.91, ctPWV: ICC Z 0.84, both P < 0.01).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".