MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922486995 · doi:10.3390/jcm8030337

How Effective Is Pulse Arrival Time for Evaluating Blood Pressure? Challenges and Recommendations from a Study Using the MIMIC Database

2019· article· en· W2922486995 on OpenAlexafffund
Yongbo Liang, Derek Abbott, Newton Howard, Kenneth Lim, Rabab Ward, Mohamed Elgendi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBC Children's HospitalChildren's Hospital Foundation
KeywordsMedicineEarlobeBlood pressureArrival timeDatabaseCuffSurgeryInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.040
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0400.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations90
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207