Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37018682›Full record

ArticleIEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering2023

Non-Invasive Pressure-Only Aortic Wave Intensity Evaluation Using Hybrid Fourier Decomposition-Machine Learning Approach.

Arian Aghilinejad, Heng Wei, Niema M Pahlevan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in IEEE transactions on bio-medical engineering, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Arian Aghilinejad
Heng Wei
Niema M Pahlevan

Funding

American Heart Association-American Stroke Association 915728NHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201500001CNHLBI NIH HHS HHSN268201500001I
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe clinical significance of the wave intensity (WI) analysis for the diagnosis and prognosis of the cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases is well-established. However, this method has not been fully translated into clinical practice. From practical point of view, the main limitation of WI method is the need for concurrent measurements of both pressure and flow waveforms. To overcome this limitation, we developed a Fourier-based machine learning (F-ML) approach to evaluate WI using only the pressure waveform measurement.

methodsTonometry recordings of the carotid pressure and ultrasound measurements for the aortic flow waveforms from the Framingham Heart Study (2640 individuals; 55% women) were used for developing the F-ML model and the blind testing.

resultsMethod-derived estimates are significantly correlated for the first and second forward wave peak amplitudes (Wf1, r = 0.88, p 0.05; Wf2, r = 0.84, p 0.05) and the corresponding peak times (Wf1, r = 0.80, p < 0.05; Wf2, r = 0.97, p 0.05). For backward components of WI (Wb1), F-ML estimates correlated strongly for the amplitude (r = 0.71, p 0.05) and moderately for the peak time (r = 0.60, p 0.05). The results show that the pressure-only F-ML model significantly outperforms the analytical pressure-only approach based on the reservoir model. In all cases, the Bland-Altman analysis shows negligible bias in the estimations.

conclusionThe proposed pressure-only F-ML approach provides accurate estimates for WI parameters. SIGNIFICANCE: The pressure only F-ML approach introduced in this work expand the clinical usage of WI into inexpensive and non-invasive settings such as wearable telemedicine.

Indexed as

AortaCarotid ArteriesBlood PressureFemaleHumansMalePulse Wave Analysis

Identifiers

PMID37018682
PMCPMC12875607

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.