MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PS-C03-12: FINGER-TO-TOE PULSE WAVE VELOCITY IN RESPONSE TO SITTING POSITION

2023· article· en· W4315707138 on OpenAlexaff
Émy Philibert, Mathilde Paré, Nadège Côté, Catherine Fortier, Rémi Goupil, Hasan Obeid, Mohsen Agharazii

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupine positionPulse wave velocityMedicineSittingBlood pressurePhotoplethysmogramArterial stiffnessCardiologyInternal medicinePulse pressurePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Aortic stiffness is a non-traditional risk factor for cardiovascular disease and mortality and is associated with increased central pulse pressure. It is generally measured by carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (PWV) in a supine position. We hypothesized that, in a sitting position, the additional hydrostatic pressure exerted on the vascular wall could represent a vascular stress test. Two alternative methods can now estimate aortic stiffness and can be used conveniently in different positions: 1) brachial pulse wave analysis approach used by Mobil-O-Graph and 2) transit time approach using finger-to-toe PWV by photoplethysmography with the pOpmetre. The aim of the present study is to determine the impact of postural changes on PWV and central blood pressure estimation using these two distinct methods. Design and method: Central blood pressure and PWV were assessed in 20 healthy subjects using Mobil-O-Graph (PWV-M) and pOpmetre (PWV-pop) in three positions: supine in bed, supine in reclining chair and sitting. Central systolic blood pressure (SBP) was determined by calibration of brachial systolic and diastolic blood pressures by both methods (SBP-M and SBP-pop). Generalized estimating equations were used for analysis. Results: The PWV-M remained relatively constant and generally independent of the position (5.5 ± 1.0, 5.3 ± 1.0 and 5.5 ± 1.0 m/s). While PWV-M and PWV-pop were similar in the supine position (5.5 ± 1.0 vs 5.4 ± 1.3 m/s, P = NS), PWV-pop increased very significantly to 5.9 ± 1.5 m/s in supine in reclining chair position (P = 0.04), and to 9.2 ± 1.7 m/s in sitting position (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 results suggest that estimated PWV by brachial pulse wave analysis remains robust independent of position. However, the estimated finger-to-toe PWV by pulse transit time increases remarkably with the imposition of hydrostatic pressure on the vascular wall. We conclude that the finger-to-toe PWV may provide the opportunity to evaluated vascular wall property in a dynamic fashion using postural changes as a stress 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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