Observational studyScientific reports2020
Blood pressure estimation based on pulse rate variation in a certain period.
Observational study in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ensemble averaging for categorical variables: Validation study of imputing lost data in 24-h recorded postures of inpatients.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Mental workload task modeled on office work: Focusing on the flow state for well-being.PloS one · 2023Article
- Discussion of Cuffless Blood Pressure Prediction Using Plethysmograph Based on a Longitudinal Experiment: Is the Individual Model Necessary?Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Estimation and Tracking of Blood Pressure Using Routinely Acquired Photoplethysmographic Signals and Deep Neural Networks.Critical care explorations · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Availability of daily continuous blood pressure (DCBP) has a strong impact to realization of healthy society. However, existing methods to obtain blood pressure of cuff type and cuff-less types utilizing correlation with pulse waveform, pulse transit time or pulse rate; or computation of circulation model are not suitable to obtain DCBP. Here we implemented a method based on a simple circulatory system model using pulse rate measurement to overcome the limitations, and showed that it provides appropriate estimation of DCBP. The present model consists of a circulatory dynamic system model and an inverse model of a circulatory control system with input of pulse rate and six model parameters representing standard pulse rate, elasticity of systemic arteries, peripheral vascular resistance, and characteristics of resistance and stroke volume control. Validity of the DCBP estimation method was examined by preliminary experiment for one subject in four days and that for four subjects in one day. DCBP estimation was performed with 24-hour pulse rate measurement by a wearable device and sphygmomanometer measurement for parameter determination and verification. Mean absolute errors in systolic/diastolic pressures were appropriate ones for preliminary experiments with 9.4/6.4 mmHg in four days and 7.3/5.9 mmHg in five subjects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.