Differential effects of the blood pressure state on pulse rate variability and heart rate variability in critically ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heart rate variability (HRV) utilizes the electrocardiogram (ECG) and has been widely studied as a non-invasive indicator of cardiac autonomic activity. Pulse rate variability (PRV) utilizes photoplethysmography (PPG) and recently has been used as a surrogate for HRV. Several studies have found that PRV is not entirely valid as an estimation of HRV and that several physiological factors, including the pulse transit time (PTT) and blood pressure (BP) changes, may affect PRV differently than HRV. This study aimed to assess the relationship between PRV and HRV under different BP states: hypotension, normotension, and hypertension. Using the MIMIC III database, 5 min segments of PPG and ECG signals were used to extract PRV and HRV, respectively. Several time-domain, frequency-domain, and nonlinear indices were obtained from these signals. Bland-Altman analysis, correlation analysis, and Friedman rank sum tests were used to compare HRV and PRV in each state, and PRV and HRV indices were compared among BP states using Kruskal-Wallis tests. The findings indicated that there were differences between PRV and HRV, especially in short-term and nonlinear indices, and although PRV and HRV were altered in a similar manner when there was a change in BP, PRV seemed to be more sensitive to these changes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".