Evaluation of a community-based automated blood pressure measuring device.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Automated devices are widely available in the community for people to measure their blood pressure. We assessed the accuracy and reproducibility of a brand of community-based automated device against the standard mercury sphygmomanometer. METHODS: Same-arm pairs of blood pressure readings were obtained with the Vita-Stat 90550 automated device, a sphygmomanometer and the Omron HEM-705CP automated device in random order on volunteers in 3 community pharmacies using a modified protocol for evaluating blood pressure devices. Comparison of readings between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer served as a positive control of how well a laboratory-validated automated device could perform in the community. Both the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) and British Hypertension Society (BHS) criteria were used to assess the accuracy and reproducibility of readings. RESULTS: The mean blood pressure reading and standard error (SE) of the mean for the 108 volunteers (66 women and 42 men) was 133/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Vita-Stat device, 131/77 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the Omron device and 129/76 (SE 2/1) mm Hg with the sphygmomanometer. The mean difference in readings was 4.4/1.0 (standard deviation [SD] 9.4/6.2) mm Hg between the Vita-Stat device and the sphygmomanometer and 1.6/0.6 (SD 9.3/6.4) mm Hg between the Omron device and the sphygmomanometer. Neither automated device met the AAMI accuracy criteria for the systolic readings. The BHS grades were C/A (systolic unacceptable/diastolic acceptable) for each automated device. According to the BHS analytical criterion, all devices achieved acceptable reproducibility grades. INTERPRETATION: Neither automated device met the AAMI or BHS criteria for accuracy while in use in the community, and neither performed as well in the community as in the laboratory.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".