Comparison of the oscillometric blood pressure monitor (BPM-100 Beta ) with the auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare directly the accuracy of the BPM-100(Beta) monitor (an automated oscillometric blood pressure device) with standard auscultatory mercury sphygmomanometry. DESIGN: The BPM-100(Beta) was connected in parallel via a T-tube to a mercury sphygmomanometer. The BPM-100(Beta) and two trained observers (blinded from each other and from the BPM-100(Beta)) measured the sitting blood pressure simultaneously. METHODS: Means, standard deviations and ranges were calculated for all the demographic data: age, arm size, heart rate and blood pressure. The agreement between the BPM-100(Beta) and the mean of two observers (the reference) was determined and expressed as the mean +/- SD, as well as the percentage of differences falling within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg. RESULTS: Of the 92 subjects recruited, 85 (92.4%) met the inclusion criteria, and 391 sets of sitting blood pressure and heart rate measurements were available for analysis. The mean difference between the BPM-100(Beta) monitor and the reference was -0.62 +/- 6.96 mmHg for systolic blood pressure, -1.48 +/- 4.80 mmHg for diastolic blood pressure and 0.14 +/- 1.86 beats/min for heart rate. The only limitation of the device was its tendency to underestimate higher systolic blood pressures. This problem has been addressed by a minor change in the algorithm (see the companion publication, Blood Press Monit, 6, 161-165, 2001). CONCLUSION: The BPM-100(Beta) is an accurate blood pressure monitor for the office setting, meeting all requirements of the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation and achieving an 'A' grade according to the British Hypertension Society 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 | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".