How Effective Is Pulse Arrival Time for Evaluating Blood Pressure? Challenges and Recommendations from a Study Using the MIMIC Database
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
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the number one cause of non-infectious morbidity and mortality in the world. The detection, measurement, and management of high blood pressure play an essential role in the prevention and control of CVDs. However, owing to the limitations and discomfort of traditional blood pressure (BP) detection techniques, many new cuff-less blood pressure approaches have been proposed and explored. Most of these involve arterial wave propagation theory, which is based on pulse arrival time (PAT), the time interval needed for a pulse wave to travel from the heart to some distal place on the body, such as the finger or earlobe. For this study, the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC) database was used as a benchmark for PAT analysis. Many researchers who use the MIMIC database make the erroneous assumption that all the signals are synchronized. Therefore, we decided to investigate the calculation of PAT intervals in the MIMIC database and check its usefulness for evaluating BP. Our findings have important implications for the future use of the MIMIC database, especially for BP evaluation.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it