Consistent relationship between automated office blood pressure recorded in different settings
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: Conventional office blood pressure (BP) readings are affected by various factors including the presence of an observer and the setting. This study was undertaken to assess the consistency of automated self-measurement of BP in the office during repeat visits and in different settings. Automated office BP readings were also compared with the mean awake ambulatory BP. METHODS: BP readings were obtained using an automated BpTRU sphygmomanometer during routine visits to a hypertension specialist before and after 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) was performed. A third automated BP reading was obtained during the visit to the ABPM unit. RESULTS: There were no significant differences among the three automated office BP readings, which were all similar to the mean awake ambulatory BP. A manual BP reading taken by the ABPM technician was significantly higher (P<0.001) than the mean awake ambulatory BP. There was good agreement among the three automated office BP readings (intraclass correlation coefficient for systolic/diastolic BP r = 0.896/0.873). CONCLUSION: Mean automated office BP readings are consistent from visit-to-visit regardless of the setting in which they are taken and they are similar to the mean awake ambulatory BP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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