↓ Skip to main content

Beat-to-beat estimation of the continuous left and right cardiac elastance from metrics commonly available in clinical settings

Overview of attention for article published in BioMedical Engineering OnLine, September 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
linkedin
1 LinkedIn user

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Beat-to-beat estimation of the continuous left and right cardiac elastance from metrics commonly available in clinical settings
Published in
BioMedical Engineering OnLine, September 2012
DOI 10.1186/1475-925x-11-73
Pubmed ID
Authors

David Stevenson, James Revie, J Geoffrey Chase, Christopher E Hann, Geoffrey M Shaw, Bernard Lambermont, Alexandre Ghuysen, Philippe Kolh, Thomas Desaive

Abstract

Functional time-varying cardiac elastances (FTVE) contain a rich amount of information about the specific cardiac state of a patient. However, a FTVE waveform is very invasive to directly measure, and is thus currently not used in clinical practice. This paper presents a method for the estimation of a patient specific FTVE, using only metrics that are currently available in a clinical setting. Correlations are defined between invasively measured FTVE waveforms and the aortic and pulmonary artery pressures from 2 cohorts of porcine subjects, 1 induced with pulmonary embolism, the other with septic shock. These correlations are then used to estimate the FTVE waveform based on the individual aortic and pulmonary artery pressure waveforms, using the "other" dysfunction's correlations as a cross validation. The cross validation resulted in 1.26% and 2.51% median errors for the left and right FTVE respectively on pulmonary embolism, while the septic shock cohort had 2.54% and 2.90% median errors. The presented method accurately and reliably estimated a patient specific FTVE, with no added risk to the patient. The cross validation shows that the method is not dependent on dysfunction and thus has the potential for generalisation beyond pulmonary embolism and septic shock.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 30%
Researcher 4 17%
Other 3 13%
Professor 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 1 4%
Other 3 13%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 10 43%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 9%
Physics and Astronomy 2 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 4%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 5 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 September 2012.
All research outputs
#14,734,103
of 22,679,690 outputs
Outputs from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#395
of 821 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#103,631
of 170,728 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioMedical Engineering OnLine
#3
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,679,690 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 821 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.6. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 170,728 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.