Clinical assessment of the DINAMAP ProCare monitor in an adult population according to the British Hypertension Society Protocol
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: Clinical recommendation of an automated blood pressure device is dependent on assessment according to a recognized protocol. The DINAMAP ProCare monitor is an oscillometric device intended for hospital, physician office or clinic use. The device algorithm was developed and tested against an auscultatory standard to increase comparability, in contrast to previous DINAMAP products that were designed to be accurate compared with an invasive central aortic reference, as specified in the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation-SP10 Standard (AAMI SP10 Standard: 1992, 2002). This device was validated in an adult population according to the protocol of the British Hypertension Society. METHODS: Local ethics committee approval was obtained and all patients were required to give written informed consent. Nine sequential same-arm measurements, alternating between observer and device, were taken from each patient. Data analysis was performed according to the guidelines of the British Hypertension Society protocol on 85 patients who fulfilled the blood pressure categories specified by the protocol. RESULTS: The DINAMAP ProCare monitor achieved an A grade for both systolic and diastolic pressures. It also achieved the passing criteria of the ANSI/AAMI SP10 with a mean difference (standard deviation) for systolic and diastolic pressures, respectively, of -0.3 (6.9) and -4.0 (5.9) mmHg. CONCLUSION: The DINAMAP ProCare monitor can be recommended for clinical use in an adult population according to the criteria of the British Hypertension Society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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