Tail-Cuff Versus Radiotelemetry to Measure Blood Pressure in Mice and Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
blood pressure measurement; telemetry; tail-cuff; rodents; experimental hypertension Rats and mice are commonly used as experimental models in hypertension research.Critical to the field is information on blood pressure in these models at baseline, over time and following interventions.While there have been advancements in the approaches to measure blood pressure in mice and rats, the two methods that are commonly used include invasive radiotelemetry and the non-invasive tail-cuff technique.Both methods have advantages and disadvantages as highlighted in the 2005 American Heart Association statement paper on recommendations for blood pressure measurement in experimental animals. 1 Because assessment by implantable radiotelemetry allows for continuous and direct measurement of blood pressure, this has been considered as the "standard".However, with this notion is the perception by some authors and reviewers that tail-cuff measurements are not acceptable in the reporting of mouse and rat blood pressures.Here we clarify that this is not the case and that the selection of methods to be used should be informed primarily by the objectives of the study.The Editors feel it is appropriate to briefly review the methods of blood pressure
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".