A Study of the White-Coat Phenomenon in Patients with Primary Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the discrepancy between clinic and home blood pressure (BP) in hypertensive subjects would disappear or diminish in magnitude if the BP measurement was taken under controlled conditions differing only with respect to location (clinic vs. home). Three hundred and sixty-seven patients aged 34-84 years with primary hypertension were enrolled. All of the patients or their spouses were taught to measure BP correctly with their own sphygmomanometer at home. The home BP value (HBP) was calculated as the average of 45 readings over 15 days. On days 6, 12, and 18 of the measurement period, rather than measuring their BP at home, patients and their spouses were asked to visit the hospital at the usual time of their BP measurement and to bring their own sphygmomanometer. The clinic BP value (CBP) was calculated as the average of the 9 readings taken on these visits by the patients or their spouses. The "white-coat phenomenon" (WCP) was considered to be present when the difference between the CBP and HBP was greater than 20/10 mmHg. The mean reading of home systolic/diastolic BP was 134.7/79.1 mmHg and the mean reading of clinic systolic/diastolic BP was 149.8/86.4 mmHg. In the total subject group, the prevalence rate of WCP was 31%-35% if the WCP was defined as DeltaBP (CBP - HBP) > or =20 mmHg/10 mmHg. In conclusion, ruling out the influence of different factors, including time of day, the sphygmomanometer, the individual taking the BP measurement, the climate, and the patients' health or mood, the WCP was still found to exist to a statistically significant degree. This study indicated that teaching patients to measure their own BP at home is an effective procedure to obtain a more accurate result of their BP level. It also helped to involve the patients more actively in controlling their hypertension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".