{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02282608695652174, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.924812030075188, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparing the Accuracy of Physiologic and Triangular Pseudoflow Waveforms for Estimating Wave Reflection Indices in Adults

Central aortic pressure waveforms contain valuable prognostic information in addition to central systolic pressure. Using wave separation analysis, aortic pressure‐flow relations can be used to decompose aortic pressure waveforms into forward (Pf) and backward‐travelling (Pb) components. Pf and Pb are used to calculate reflection magnitude (RM=Pb/Pf) which is predictive of heart failure and all‐cause mortality. Aortic blood flow can be measured non‐invasively via ultrasonography or estimated using a triangular pseudoflow waveform; however, the latter can underestimate true flow and thus overestimate Pb and RM. Recently, a physiologic pseudoflow waveform has been developed that improves on the assumptions of triangulation and so may provide a more accurate estimation of wave reflection.