Use of automated office blood pressure measurement to reduce the white coat response
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: To examine the possibility of reducing the white coat response using an automated sphygmomanometer designed for office use, the BpTRU. Consecutive patients referred from physicians in the community to an ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring unit in an academic hospital were included in the study. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: A total of 309 patients referred for diagnosis or management of hypertension were studied. Differences between mean awake ABP and BP readings taken by the patient's own physician using a manual sphygmomanometer or the automated BpTRU device with the patient resting alone in the ABP monitoring unit were compared. RESULTS: BP recorded in the examining room using an automated device (132 +/- 19/75 +/- 12) was similar to the mean awake ABP (134 +/- 12/77 +/- 10) with both values being lower (P < 0.001) than the BP recorded on a routine visit to the patient's own family physician (152 +/- 18/87 +/- 11). The coefficient of correlation between the systolic/diastolic ABP and the automated office BP (r = 0.62/0.72) was higher (P < 0.001) than with the family physician's manual BP (r = 0.32/0.48). The prevalence of white coat hypertension in untreated patients (n = 146) was significantly (P < 0.001) lower with automated office BP (16%) compared with the routine family physician BP (55%). CONCLUSION: The white coat response associated with office BP measurements can be virtually eliminated by recording BP with the automated BpTRU device with patients resting alone in a quiet examining room.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it