Augmented blood pressure measurement through the noninvasive estimation of physiological arterial pressure variability
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
Current noninvasive blood pressure (BP) measurement methods, such as the oscillometric method, estimate the systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) at two random instants in time and do not take into account the natural variability in BP. The standard for automated BP devices sets a maximum allowable system error of ±5 mmHg, even though natural BP variability often exceeds these limits. This paper proposes a new approach using simultaneous recordings of the oscillometric and continuous arterial pulse waveforms to augment the conventional noninvasive measurement by providing (1) the mean SBP and DBP over the measurement interval and the associated confidence intervals of the mean, (2) the standard deviation of SBP and DBP over the measurement interval, which indicates the degree of fluctuation in BP and (3) an indicator as to whether or not the oscillometric reading is an outlier. Recordings with healthy subjects demonstrate the potential utility of this approach to characterize BP, to detect outlier measurements, and that it does not suffer from bias relative to the conventional oscillometric method.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it