PS-C08-5: VALIDATE-CKD - PRELIMINARY FINDINGS ON CENTRAL BLOOD PRESSURE DEVICES ACCURACY IN PATIENTS WITH STAGES G4-G5 CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Measurement of brachial cuff blood pressure (BP) was designed as a convenient surrogate to the aortic BP, which is the BP that dictates perfusion to target organs. In the general population, brachial cuff systolic BP (SBP) has a somewhat acceptable accuracy towards aortic BP but less is know in populations with marked high arterial stiffness, such as in G4-G5 CKD. Central BP devices were designed to directly estimate the aortic BP through pulse wave analysis to a greater accuracy than brachial cuff BP. The aim of the ongoing VALIDATE-CKD study is to compare the accuracy of brachial and central BP readings towards the intraarterial aortic SBP, in patients with and without Stage G4-G5 CKD. Design and method: In patients with and without Stage G4-G5 CKD (eGFR < 30 ml/min/1.73m2) undergoing non-urgent coronary angiograms, invasive aortic and non-invasive (WatchBP and Mobil-o-graph devices) BPs were measured simultaneously following the ARTERY Society protocol. Accuracy was defined by the mean difference (± SD) between the aortic SBP and the corresponding non-invasive SBP. Results: To date, 8 individuals with Stage G4-G5 CKD and 26 control subjects are enrolled. The following table presents clinical characteristics and non-invasive BPs accuracies in patients with and without Stage G4-G5 CKD. Conclusion: These preliminary results indicate that brachial SBP significantly underestimates aortic SBP in patients with Stage G4-5 CKD as compared to control subject. Furthermore, central BP devices provide a highly accurate estimation of aortic SBP in this population. The ongoing VALIDATE-CKD study may support that the use of central BP devices could be beneficial for the management of patients with advanced CKD.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".