Respiratory gating improves correlation between pulse wave transit time and pulmonary artery pressure in experimental pulmonary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective . Since pulse wave transit time (PWTT) shortens as pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) increases it was suggested as a potential non-invasive surrogate for PAP. The state of tidal lung filling is also known to affect PWTT independently of PAP. The aim of this retrospective analysis was to test whether respiratory gating improved the correlation coefficient between PWTT and PAP. Approach . In each one of five anesthetized and mechanically ventilated pigs two high-fidelity pressure catheters were placed, one directly behind the pulmonary valve, and the second one in a distal branch of the pulmonary artery. PAP was raised using the thromboxane A2 analogue U46619 and animals were ventilated in a pressure controlled mode (I:E ratio 1:2, respiratory rate 12/min, tidal volume of 6 ml kg −1 ). All signals were recorded using the multi-channel platform PowerLab ® . The arrival of the pulse wave at each catheter tip was determined using a MATLAB-based modified hyperbolic tangent algorithm and PWTT calculated as the time interval between these arrivals. Main results . Correlation coefficient for PWTT and mean PAP was r = 0.932 for thromboxane. This correlation coefficient increased considerably when heart beats either at end-inspiration ( r = 0.978) or at end-expiration ( r = 0.985) were selected (=respiratory gating). Significance . The estimation of mean PAP from PWTT improved significantly when taking the respiratory cycle into account. Respiratory gating is suggested to improve for the estimation of PAP by PWTT.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".