Impact of Terminal Digit Preference by Family Physicians and Sphygmomanometer Calibration Errors on Blood Pressure Value: Implication for Hypertension Screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy of blood pressure (BP) measurement is important; systematic small errors can mislabel BP status in many persons. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of 2 types of measurement errors on the evaluation of BP in family medicine: errors associated with terminal digit preference and those associated with calibration errors of sphygmomanometers. Secondary data analyses from 2 different projects were used to derive empiric distributions of terminal digit and BP device errors. Taking into account both types of errors, the proportion of false positives (falsely high BP) and false negatives (falsely normal BP) varied between 0. 82% and 5.18% of the population of consulting family physicians. In the United States, false positives and false negatives in patients' BP evaluations might lead to overtreating or undertreating 1.15 million to 7.25 million patients. Results support the need for the development of systematic interventions for quality control of BP measurements and periodic retraining for health professionals.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".