A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Comparison of frequency-based techniques for assessment of baroreceptor sensitivity and heart rate variability. | LitMetric

Heart rate variability (HRV) and baroreceptor sensitivity (BRS) quantify autonomic variability in heart pacing and the autonomic response to blood pressure changes respectively. By necessity, the signals used to calculate HRV and BRS (systolic blood pressure (SBP) and RR interval) have one data point every cardiac cycle. Due to inherent variability in heart rate, these are non-uniformly sampled data. A number of calculation methods exist that adjust for non-uniform sampled signals. This study compared frequency domain methods of HRV and BRS calculation to ascertain whether more complex methods resulted in different results to simpler methods. Wistar rats (n=10), and rats with induced diabetes (n=8) were anesthetized and SBP and RR interval measured for a period of approximately 5 minutes. This data were analyzed using the sequence technique (for BRS), fast Fourier transform (FFT), non-uniform discrete Fourier transform (NDFT) and an extended Lomb-Scargle Periodogram (LSP). There were small but significant differences in NDFT from LSP technique for both BRS in the low frequency range (p=0.005) and HRV in the high frequency range (p=0.001). The NDFT technique was also significantly different to FFT technique for BRS in the low frequency range (p=0.023). All other methods were not statistically different. However, all techniques showed the same results comparing diabetic to control rats. This study shows more complex methods that correct for the non-uniformity of the sampling have significant differences but those differences are small to the point of not altering findings associated with HRV or BRS.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/EMBC.2017.8037729DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

heart rate
12
variability heart
12
hrv brs
12
technique brs
12
frequency range
12
baroreceptor sensitivity
8
rate variability
8
blood pressure
8
sbp interval
8
complex methods
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!