Relationship between Ischemic Stroke and Pulse Rate Variability as a Surrogate of Heart Rate Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomic reflex ascertains cardiovascular homeostasis during standing. Impaired autonomic reflex could lead to dizziness and falls while standing; this is prevalent in stroke survivors. Pulse rate variability (PRV) has been utilized in the literature in lieu of heart rate variability (HRV) for ambulatory and portable monitoring of autonomic reflex predominantly in young, healthy individuals. Here, we compared the PRV with gold standard HRV for monitoring autonomic reflex in ischemic stroke survivors. Continuous blood pressure and electrocardiography were acquired from ischemic stroke survivors (64 ± 1 years) and age-matched controls (65 ± 2 years) during a 10-minute sit-to-stand test. Beat-by-beat heart period (represented by RR and peak-to-peak (PP) intervals), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), and pulse arrival time (PAT), an indicator of arterial stiffness, were derived. Time and frequency domain HRV (from RR intervals) and PRV (from PP intervals) metrics were extracted. PAT was lower (248 ± 7 ms vs. 270 ± 8 ms, p < 0.05) suggesting higher arterial stiffness in stroke survivors compared to controls during standing. Further, compared to controls, the agreement between HRV and PRV was impaired in stroke survivors while standing. The study outcomes suggest that caution should be exercised when considering PRV as a surrogate of HRV for monitoring autonomic cardiovascular control while standing in stroke survivors.
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 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 | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".