Investigating Optimal Intermittent Pneumatic Compression Timing Across Two Days
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) systems are employed to treat vascular diseases. It has been shown that applying cardiac-gated compression effectively enhances femoral blood velocity (BV), but the optimal compression timing likely varies between individuals and may vary over time. While a previous work has shown the usability of one heartbeat ahead BV estimation to optimize the compression timing, that study was limited to a single treatment session and the BV estimator performance may deteriorate for the next sessions. Therefore, the goal of this study is to develop BV estimators and evaluate their accuracy over a longer time-scale. Six participants wore a custom IPC system and experienced random cardiac-gated compression timings for 1.5 hours per day for two days. A data- driven model was trained on electrocardiogram and applied pressure data to predict femoral BV one heartbeat ahead in a closed loop manner. The mean R2for this model across participants on the second session was 0.74 ± 0.09 and the mean absolute error was approximately 3%, which is a reduction of only 11% compared to the first sessions, for both metrics. This study is the first to show that BV across IPC sessions can be predicted using a pre-trained model. This work may lead to a significant improvement in IPC performance with only an initial model training session.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".