Blood Pressure Measurement in Morbid Obesity: Comparison between Forearm and Intra-Arterial Assessment of Blood pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Obesity is associated with high blood pressure. Measurement of blood pressure (BP) in morbid obesity with a larger cuff bladder may be erroneous due to the anatomy of their upper limb and/or a nonsuitable cuff bladder. The objective of the study was to compare a non-invasive technique of BP measurement on the forearm with an appropriate standard blood cuff bladder to an invasive method (intra-arterial measurement in the radial artery) in two groups of subjects; non obese (NO) and morbidly obese (MO). Methods: Twenty-seven NO subjects with a mean body mass index (BMI) of 25,6 ± 2,7 kg/m2 were evaluated using two different techniques for blood pressure measurement. Measures were performed, in a supine position, at the forearm level with a standard cuff bladder (Welch Allyn, NY, USA) and on the opposite forearm using an intra-arterial access. The NO group was compared to 20 MO subjects with a mean BMI of 5,1 ± 8,7 kg/m2. The MO group was evaluated during a bariatric surgery procedure, with regular intervals (10 to 15 min) using the same two methods described above. Results: A difference was observed between the two techniques of blood pressure measurements (P < 0.05 and P < 0.01 intra-arterial vs. cuff bladder for the NO and the MO groups respectively) (see Table). Correlations between the two techniques were observed in the NO group (P < 0.001) for the systolic BP (r=0,823) and the diastolic BP (r=0,769). Similar correlations were also observed in the MO group for the systolic BP (r=0,792, P < 0,001) and the diastolic BP (r=0,830, P < 0,001; Table). *** Table in Full Text PDF. *** Conclusion: Although different, BP measurements at the forearm level in MO subjects seems to be clinically valid. This technique may be used in this specific population as an alternative for the measurement of BP.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".