Automated blood pressure measurement in routine clinical practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare blood pressure measurements taken in routine clinical practice using an automated recorder, the BpTRU (VSM MedTech Ltd, Coquitlam, Canada), with readings taken by a conventional mercury sphygmomanometer. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients [28 women, 22 men; mean (+/-SD) age 62+/-16 years] referred to a specialist for management of hypertension had blood pressure taken on the first visit in random order using both a mercury sphygmomanometer and an automated device. RESULTS: The mean initial automated reading (mmHg) taken with the observer present (162+/-27/85+/-12) was similar to the mean manual blood pressure taken in duplicate (163+/-23/86+12). Both values were higher (P<0.001) than the mean of the next five readings taken with the automated recorder when the patient was resting quietly alone (142+/-21/80+/-12). Women exhibited a greater fall in blood pressure with the automated device than men. CONCLUSIONS: Use of an automated blood pressure recorder can eliminate some of the white-coat effect associated with readings taken by a mercury sphygmomanometer.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it