Overall accuracy of the BpTRU??????an automated electronic blood pressure device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this report is to combine the data from an earlier adult study with the data from a paediatric study in order to determine the overall accuracy of the BpTRU (BPM-100 model) as compared to the recognized standard, auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer. DESIGN: The individual blood pressure points recorded for both adult and paediatric studies were compared directly to its corresponding observer reference measurements from data collected and stored from the two separate studies. There were 255 sets of readings in the adult study and 162 sets from the paediatric study, which were combined to make 417 pairs of blood pressure readings for this study. METHODS: The overall observer standard reference mean for the 417 measurements was calculated and the difference between this and the overall mean BPM-100 was calculated with SD and ranges. Measurements within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg agreement were expressed as percentages. RESULTS: A total of 121 subjects were included for this study (85 from the adult study and 36 from the paediatric study). From these, 417 paired measurements were recorded. The mean difference between the BpTRU and the reference standard systolic blood pressure (BP) was 0.47+/-5.40 mmHg with 89.2% measurements within 5 mmHg, 96.4% within 10 mmHg and 99.3% within 15 mmHg. The mean difference between the BpTRU and reference diastolic BP was -2.12+/-5.93 mmHg with 81.1% within 5 mmHg, 92.1% within 10 mmHg and 97.6% within 15 mmHg. CONCLUSION: The BpTRU has been shown to be an accurate non-invasive blood pressure monitoring device in the general population over a wide range of ages (3-83 years). This combined study meets all requirements of the Association of Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and achieved a grade 'A' in the BHS protocol.
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 | 0.021 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".