MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408506781 · doi:10.1177/20552076251323838

Defining the physiological bounds of left ventricular ejection time with a wireless, wearable ultrasound: An analysis of over 137,000 cardiac cycles

2025· article· en· W4408506781 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa M. Hofer, Jon‐Émile S. Kenny, Chelsea E. Munding, Isabel Kerrebijn, Sarah Atwi, Aarron Younan, Joseph K. Eibl

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Health · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityHealth Sciences North
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreloadMedicineCardiologyCardiac cycleInternal medicineStroke volumeBlood flowUltrasoundCommon carotid arteryDoppler effectCarotid arteriesHemodynamicsHeart failureEjection fractionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Flow time (FT) or the left ventricular ejection time (LVET) is the duration of mechanical systole, when the aortic valve is open and ejecting blood. LVET can be measured in the common carotid artery from the time of the systolic upstroke to the incisural notch. FT is directly related to stroke volume (SV) and therefore has important implications for inpatient and outpatient cardiovascular care. Despite this known relationship between FT (i.e., LVET) and SV, large patient datasets describing the distribution and physiological bounds of FT are lacking. Methods: Using a wearable, continuous-wave Doppler ultrasound patch, we are amassing a database of cardiac cycles from the common carotid Doppler pulse in patients and healthy volunteers performing various preload challenges. Results: From this dataset of over 137,000 measurements in 347 patients, we report the mean and distributions of the common carotid artery flow time (i.e., LVET) corrected for heart rate using several prevailing equations. Conclusions: Our findings are the most extensive exploration of the physiological bounds of FT (i.e., LVET) and are useful in both clinical assessments of cardiac health and various algorithm detection applications.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital HealthSame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207