MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

IMPACT OF POSTURAL POSITION ON DETERMINATION OF AORTIC STIFFNESS AND CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE

2022· article· en· W4283207255 on OpenAlexaff
Émy Philibert, Mathilde Paré, Nadège Côté, Catherine Fortier, Karine Duval, Rémi Goupil, Hasan Obeid, Mohsen Agharazii

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAortic pressurePosition (finance)CardiologyBlood pressureStiffnessInternal medicineStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Aortic stiffness is associated with increased central pulse pressure and cardiovascular disease and mortality. It is generally performed by determination of carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) in a supine position. Two alternative approaches have been developed to estimate aortic stiffness, namely brachial pulse waveform analysis (Mobil-O-Graph) and finger-to-toe PWV by photoplethysmography (pOpmeter). These devices make it possible to assess and estimate aortic stiffness conveniently in different positions. However, it remains unclear if the values obtained are independent of the position at the time of measurement. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to determine the extent of postural changes on pulse wave velocity and central blood pressure estimation using pOpmetre and Mobil-O-Graph devices in a group of healthy controls. Design and method: Central blood pressure and PWV were assessed in 20 healthy subjects using both Mobil-O-Graph (PWV-M) and pOpmetre (PWV-pop) in three positions: supine position in bed, supine position in medical sampling chair and a sitting position. Central systolic blood pressure (SBP) was determined by calibration of brachial systolic and diastolic blood pressures (C1 calibration) by both methods (SBP-M and SBP-pop). Results: In the supine position in bed, PWV-M and PWV-pop were similar (5.5 ± 1.0 vs 5.4 ± 1.3 m/s, P = NS). In the supine position in a sampling chair, PWV-M decreased slightly (5.3 ± 1.0 m/s, P = 0.04 vs supine in bed), while PWV-pop increased significantly (5.9 ± 1.5 m/s, P = 0.04 vs supine in bed). However, in the sitting position, while PWV-M was not statistically different from the supine position (5.5 ± 1.0 m/s, P = NS), PWV-pop increased very significantly (9.2 ± 1.7 m/s, P < 0.001). Central blood pressure estimation remained similar for SBP-M (110.2 ± 10.3 vs 106.9 ± 10.5 vs 108.8 ± 11.1 mmHg, P = NS) and for SBP-pop (107.7 ± 10.4 vs 110.3 ± 9.6 vs 109.5 ± 9.9 mmHg, P = NS). Conclusions: These preliminary results tell us that postural position has little impact on the determination of aortic stiffness by the approach using brachial pulse wave analysis. However, finger-to-toe PWV increases remarkably with changes in position, possibly offering to explore the relationship between hydrostatic pressure and arterial stiffness as a dynamic test.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207