MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906356629 · doi:10.1113/ep087240

Comparison of pulse contour, aortic Doppler ultrasound and bioelectrical impedance estimates of stroke volume during rapid changes in blood pressure

2018· article· en· W2906356629 on OpenAlexafffund
Travis D. Gibbons, Kathryn Zuj, Sean D. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Physiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute for AgingUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsStroke volumeMedicineCardiologyBlood pressureBioelectrical impedance analysisPulse pressureUltrasoundHemodynamicsInternal medicineBlood volumeHeart rateRadiologyBody mass index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New Findings What is the central question of this study? Pulse contour analysis of the finger arterial pressure by Windkessel modelling is commonly used to estimate stroke volume continuously. But is it valid during dynamic changes in blood pressure? What is the main finding and its importance? Second‐by‐second analysis revealed that pulse contour analysis underestimated stroke volume by up to 25% after standing from a squat, and 16% after standing thigh‐cuff release, when compared with aortic Doppler ultrasound estimates. These results reveal that pulse contour analysis of stroke volume should be interpreted with caution during rapid changes in physiological state. Abstract Dynamic measurements of stroke volume (SV) and cardiac output provide an index of central haemodynamics during transitional states, such as postural changes and onset of exercise. The most widely used method to assess dynamic fluctuations in SV is the Modelflow method, which uses the arterial blood pressure waveform along with age‐ and sex‐specific aortic properties to compute beat‐to‐beat estimates of aortic flow. Modelflow has been validated against more direct methods in steady‐state conditions, but not during dynamic changes in physiological state, such as active orthostatic stress testing. In the present study, we compared the dynamic SV responses from Modelflow (SV MF ), aortic Doppler ultrasound (SV U/S ) and bioelectrical impedance analysis (SV BIA ) during two different orthostatic stress tests, a squat‐to‐stand (S‐S) transition and a standing bilateral thigh‐cuff release (TCR), in 15 adults (six females). Second‐by‐second analysis revealed that when compared with estimates of SV by aortic Doppler ultrasound, Modelflow underestimated SV by up to 25% from 3 to 11 s after standing from the squat position and by up to 16% from 3 to 7 s after TCR ( P < 0.05). The SV MF and SV BIA were similar during the first minute of the S‐S transition, but were different 3 s after TCR and at intermittent time points between 34 and 44 s ( P < 0.05). These findings indicate that the physiological conditions elicited by orthostatic stress testing violate some of the inherent assumptions of Modelflow and challenge models used to interpret bioelectrical impedance responses, resulting in an underestimation in SV during rapid changes in physiological state.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental PhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207