Diagnostic characteristics of 11 formulae for calculating corrected flow time as measured by a wearable Doppler patch
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Change of the corrected flow time (Ftc) is a surrogate for tracking stroke volume (SV) in the intensive care unit. Multiple Ftc equations have been proposed; many have not had their diagnostic characteristics for detecting SV change reported. Further, little is known about the inherent Ftc variability induced by the respiratory cycle. Materials and methods Using a wearable Doppler ultrasound patch, we studied the clinical performance of 11 Ftc equations to detect a 10% change in SV measured by non-invasive pulse contour analysis; 26 healthy volunteers performed a standardized cardiac preload modifying maneuver. Results One hundred changes in cardiac preload and 3890 carotid beats were analyzed. Most of the 11 Ftc equations studied had similar diagnostic attributes. Wodeys’ and Chambers’ formulae had identical results; a 2% change in Ftc detected a 10% change in SV with a sensitivity and specificity of 96% and 93%, respectively. Similarly, a 3% change in Ftc calculated by Bazett’s formula displayed a sensitivity and specificity of 91% and 93%. FtcWodeyhad 100% concordance and anR2of 0.75 with change in SV; these values were 99%, 0.76 and 98%, 0.71 for FtcChambersand FtcBazetts, respectively. As an exploratory analysis, we studied 3335 carotid beats for the dispersion of Ftc during quiet breathing using the equations of Wodey and Bazett. The coefficient of variation of Ftc during quiet breathing for these formulae were 0.06 and 0.07, respectively. Conclusions Most of the 11 different equations used to calculate carotid artery Ftc from a wearable Doppler ultrasound patch had similar thresholds and abilities to detect SV change in healthy volunteers. Variation in Ftc induced by the respiratory cycle is important; measuring a clinically significant change in Ftc with statistical confidence requires a large sample of beats.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".