In vitro and in vivo evaluation of an oscillometric device for monitoring blood pressure in dialysis patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nowadays, an increasing number of dialysis machines lodge a blood pressure (BP) measuring device, whose accuracy has a clear implication for the patients' clinical management. METHODS: An automated oscillometric sphygmomanometer (HD-BPM by Gambro Dasco) used during haemodialysis was submitted to both in vitro and in vivo tests, in order to evaluate some modifications aimed at improving measurement accuracy and consistency. The results were compared with those obtained by another oscillometric monitor (BX-100 by Colin). Three steps of evaluation were followed. First, the maintenance of the overall accuracy requirements prescribed by ANSI/AAMI SP-10 standard was verified. Then, an in vitro validation was carried out by using a test simulator. Finally, during a multi-centre field trial, 392 BP measurement sessions on 53 dialysis patients were collected. Every session consisted of two consecutive intra-dialysis measurements by the oscillometric monitors, each one performed simultaneously to an auscultatory measurement. A comparison with the intra-arterial method was performed as well. RESULTS: When compared with an in vivo data set previously collected, the HD-BPM accuracy complied with required limits. Second, the internal repeatability with respect to the simulator was satisfactory (SD of the differences between device and simulator readings: HD-BPM: systolic = 5.7, diastolic = 4.2; BX-100: systolic = 4.2, diastolic = 5.5 mmHg). Moreover, the comparison between oscillometric and auscultatory methods during in vivo trial gave similar results for the two monitors, even if systolic pressure SD exceeds the limit recommended by ANSI/AAMI SP-10 (mean value of the differences +/- SD: HD-BPM: systolic = 0.5 +/- 9.0, diastolic = 1.5 +/- 6.9; BX-100: systolic = 3.1 +/- 8.2, diastolic = -2.0 +/- 7.6 mmHg). CONCLUSIONS: These data underline the importance of performing accuracy evaluations for BP monitors in the conditions where they normally work, by using well-accepted protocols.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".