Accuracy of oscillometric devices in children and adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical validation of blood pressure oscillometric devices are almost exclusively conducted in adults. Because oscillometric devices are used in children, it is critical to assess their accuracy also in this population. We compared blood pressure readings using an oscillometric automated device (Dinamap XL, model CR9340) with readings obtained with the mercury auscultatory method in children and adults. Blood pressure was measured in 30 children (15 boys and 15 girls; 9.5+/-1.0 years old) and their parents (25 mothers and 15 fathers; 41.0+/-5.0 years old). In children, mean difference (+/-SD) in systolic blood pressure (DeltaBP) readings (oscillometric-auscultatory) was +0.6+/-4.7 mmHg (range: -10 to +11); mean diastolic DeltaBP was 21.3+/-7.5 mmHg (range: -18 to +19) and decreased with increasing diastolic BP. In adults, mean systolic DeltaBP was +0.4+/-5.2 mmHg (range: -12 to +15) and mean diastolic DeltaBP was -5.2+/-6.0 mmHg (range: -25 to +8) (p<0.001). While the device was not accurate enough to be recommended, our study also shows that the accuracy of blood pressure oscillometric devices can differ between children and adults. Clinical accuracy of oscillometric devices should be tested in the specific populations in whom blood pressure is measured.
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 | 0.006 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".