Replacing manual sphygmomanometers with automated blood pressure measurement in routine clinical practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Conventional manual measurement of blood pressure (BP) in clinical practice is no longer considered to be the best method for evaluating a patient's BP status. Home BP and 24 h ambulatory BP monitoring are now recommended for the diagnosis and management of hypertension. 2. Recent studies provide an alternative to conventional office BP, namely automated office (AO) BP, which involves multiple BP readings taken with a fully automated device with the patient resting quietly alone. Automated office BP is preferable to routine manual office BP in that it exhibits improved accuracy and a stronger relationship to both ambulatory BP and target organ damage. 3. Having the patient alone eliminates conversation between the patient and the observer, a cause of 'white coat hypertension'. The use of an automated device improves accuracy, reduces digit preference, minimizes observer bias and facilitates the recording of multiple BP readings. 4. Comparative BP data obtained in clinical studies in both research settings and routine community practice support the use of a cut-off point of 135/85 mmHg for defining hypertension using AOBP, which is the same cut-off point currently recommended for awake ambulatory BP and home BP. 5. Reduction of the white coat response using AOBP should reduce the need to monitor patients with ambulatory BP and home BP after initiation of antihypertensive therapy. There is now sufficient evidence to consider replacing manual office BP with AOBP in routine clinical practice.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".