Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 267

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluation of methods for estimation of total arterial compliance

Open access
Stergiopulos, N., Meister, J. J., Westerhof, N.·1995·American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology

Abstract

Seven classic and recently proposed methods used for the estimation of total arterial compliance have been evaluated for their accuracy and applicability in different physiological conditions. The pressure and flow data are taken from a computer model that provides realistic simulations of the nonlinear-distributed systemic arterial tree. Besides the great flexibility in simulating different physiological or pathological cases, the major advantage of the computer model is that it allows precise knowledge of the pressure-dependent total arterial compliance, which is the variable of interest. The results show that the methods based on the two-element windkessel (WK) model are more accurate than those based on the three-element WK model. The classic exponential decay and the diastolic area method yield essentially similar results, and their compliance estimates are accurate within 10% except at high heart rates. The later part of diastole, i.e., from the time that the systolic pressure wave has reached all peripheral beds, gives the best results. The newly proposed two-area and pulse pressure methods, both based on the two-element WK model, are accurate (errors in general < 10%) and can be applied to other locations in the arterial tree where the decay time and area method cannot. Methods based on the three-element WK model consistently overestimate total arterial compliance (> or = 25%). The errors in the methods based on the three-element WK model arise from the fact that the input impedance in that model deviates significantly from the true input impedance at low frequencies. The strong dependence of compliance on pressure (elastic nonlinearity) does not invalidate the compliance estimates.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1152/ajpheart.1995.268.4.h1540

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 267

Metadata

Authors
Stergiopulos, N., Meister, J. J., & Westerhof, N.
Venue
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
Published
1995-04-01
Volume
268
Issue
4
Pages
H1540-H1548
ISSN
  • 0363-6135 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1539
OpenAlex
W1872416212
Cited by
267
References
1
FWCI
4.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evaluation of methods for estimation of total arterial compliance. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1152/ajpheart.1995.268.4.h1540
The paper
Stergiopulos, N., Meister, J. J., & Westerhof, N. (1995). Evaluation of methods for estimation of total arterial compliance. American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajpheart.1995.268.4.h1540

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.