MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of the EndoPAT device with a unique vascular assessment of reactive hyperemia

2023· article· en· W4378649694 on OpenAlexaffabout
Olivia Ramraj, Smriti Badhwar, Heather Edgell

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReactive hyperemiaMedicineBlood flowCuffForearmBlood pressureCardiologyAnesthesiaInternal medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The EndoPAT device (Itamar Medical) is used to determine endothelial function by using peripheral arterial tonometry during reactive hyperemia. It has been shown to be related to the gold standard non-invasive technique of flow-mediated dilation ultrasound assessment. These methodologies have technical requirements and/or ongoing operational costs that could be prohibitive to under-resourced clinics or researchers. We hypothesized that using a re-usable and cost-effective procedure of determining the reactive hyperemic response using piezo-electric pulse transducers (ADInstruments) would give similar results to the EndoPAT. Reactive hyperemia was induced by occluding blood flow to the forearm for 5 minutes using a blood pressure cuff inflated to +50mmHg above systolic blood pressure. The vascular response to the release of the occlusion was assessed using EndoPAT on the index fingers and using piezo-electric transducers on the middle fingers, concurrently. Twenty-five healthy participants (15 female; 31±12years) participated in the study. Participants refrained from caffeine, alcohol, fatty foods, smoking and strenuous exercise for at least 12 hours prior to testing. The EndoPAT reactive hyperemia index (RHI) was determined using proprietary software. The area under the curve (AUC) of the finger pulse waves from the piezoelectric pulse transducers was also determined. The ratio of the AUC of the peak hyperemic response (10s average) compared to the baseline period (3.5min) in the occluded arm was compared to the equivalent ratio in the control arm to determine the pulse-wave reactive hyperemia index (PWRHI). Univariate linear regression and correlation analysis was conducted between RHI and PWRHI. When comparing the two methods, Spearman’s r was 0.67 (p=0.0002) with a coefficient of determination of 0.58. We have found that the two methods correlate well to each other and the PWRHI technique has the potential to make microvascular assessments more accessible to clinicians and researchers. Our PWRHI method still needs to be validated in larger populations with vascular dysfunction and over a wider age-range. Funding provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. This is the full abstract presented at the American Physiology Summit 2023 meeting and is only available in HTML format. There are no additional versions or additional content available for this abstract. Physiology was not involved in the peer review process.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 teacher head, 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysiologySame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207