MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3010274889 · doi:10.2991/artres.k.191224.116

P86 Can Central Blood Pressure be Accurately Estimated in Individuals with and Without Systolic Blood Pressure Amplification?

2019· article· en· W3010274889 on OpenAlexaff
Rémi Goupil, Cédric Kowalski, Florence Lamarche

Bibliographic record

VenueArtery Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Systolic blood pressure (SBP) does not always amplify from central to peripheral arteries. Individuals without SBP amplification (SBPamp) have higher aortic blood pressure (BP) despite similar brachial cuff SBP. To circumvent this discrepancy, the aim of this study was to determine if aortic SBP can be accurately estimated non-invasively in patients with and without SBPamp. Methods Patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were recruited. Individuals with atrial fibrillation, ≥10 mmHg between-arm SBP difference or severe aortic stenosis were excluded. Aortic and brachial intra-arterial BP were measured using a fluid-filled catheter. Simultaneously, brachial and central cuff BP were measured in triplicate (Mobil-o-Graph, IEM, Germany). Central BP was estimated by pulse wave analysis with Type I (SBP and diastolic BP) and Type II (mean and diastolic BP) calibrations. Aortic-to-brachial SBPamp was defined as ≥5 mmHg increase between intra-arterial aortic and brachial SBP. Results Of the 151 patients recruited, only 85 had SBPamp. SBPamp+ and SBPamp- patients had similar brachial cuff SBP (126 +/− 15 vs 126 +/− 16 mmHg, p = 0.8) and clinical characteristics, apart from lower augmentation index in SBPamp+ (18 +/− 10 vs 22 +/− 11, p = 0.03). Central BP estimated with Type I or Type II calibration could not accurately determine aortic SBPs in both phenotypes (Table 1). Using the mean of both estimates only provided a slightly better accuracy. Conclusion Central BP measurements cannot accurately identify the different aortic BP of the SBPamp phenotypes. A new central BP calibration may be needed to circumvent this problem. Table 1 Baseline characteristics SBPamp+ ( n = 85) SBPamp− ( n = 66) p -value Male sex 74% 74% 1.0 Age 66 ± 11 65 ± 9 0.6 Height (cm) 171 ± 10 170 ± 10 0.6 BMI (kg/m 2 ) 29 ± 6 30 ± 10 0.3 Active smoking 28% 27% 0.9 Diabetes 19% 17% 0.7 Hypertension 59% 55% 0.6 Dyslipidemia 55% 55% 0.9 Prior cardiovascular disease 39% 52% 0.1 eGFR (mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) 80 ± 18 81 ± 18 0.7 Brachial cuff SBP 126 ± 15 126 ± 16 0.8 Brachial cuff diastolic blood pressure 78 ± 9 78 ± 12 0.9 Heart rate (bpm) 67 ± 11 65 ± 11 0.3 Augmentation index @ 75 bmp 18 ± 10 22 ± 11 0.03 Pulse wave velocity (m/s) 10 ± 2 9 ± 2 0.09 SBPamp+ and SBPamp− denotes individuals with and without SBP amplification, defined as ≥5 mmHg increase between intra-arterial aortic and brachial SBP. Values are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. All blood pressure measures are expressed in mmHg. p -values are calculated using Pearson’s chi-square and Student t -tests. SBP, systolic blood pressure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.775

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.117
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtery ResearchSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207