Home Blood Pressure Levels in Pregnant Women with Chronic Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the difference between office and home blood pressure (BP) monitoring in normotensive and hypertensive pregnant women. METHODS: We compared the mean of 1 week home BP with office BP, measured by aneroid devices, in 20 normotensive women (68 BP assessments) and 100 women with mild essential chronic hypertension without superimposed gestational hypertension (429 BP assessments). Different approaches were used including the Bland-Altman method to investigate the discrepancies between office and home BP. RESULTS: Systolic office BP in normotensive women (p = 0.004) and diastolic office BP in hypertensive women (p = 0.001) were lower than home BP. The concordance between office and home BPs was better for diastolic BP than for systolic BP. Only a small number of hypertensive women presented home BP >or=135/85 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, the concurrence between office and home BPs is good with the exception of systolic BP in normotensive women. Home blood pressure measurement criteria used in nonpregnant individuals are not adequate in pregnancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".