Evaluation of an automated sphygmomanometer for use in the office setting
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 determine whether the WatchBP Office sphygmomanometer can be used to obtain automated office blood pressure (AOBP) readings that are similar to the awake ambulatory BP. METHODS: One hundred patients referred for 24 h ambulatory BP monitoring had BP recorded three times using the WatchBP Office fully automated sphygmomanometer in accordance with standard AOBP measurement guidelines. The mean AOBP was compared with the mean awake ambulatory BP. RESULTS: The mean (± SD) AOBP (138.6 ± 13.7/79.7 ± 9.0 mmHg) was similar to the mean awake ambulatory BP (136.8 ± 12.4/79.0 ± 10.8 mmHg). The small difference in systolic BP (1.8 mmHg) was statistically significant (P=0.03), but was within the accepted range (5 mmHg) recommended by guidelines for equivalence between BP readings. There was a strong correlation (P<0.001) between the systolic/diastolic AOBP and awake ambulatory BP readings (r=0.819/0.801). CONCLUSION: The WatchBP Office produces BP readings that closely approximate the awake ambulatory BP, confirming that this automated sphygmomanometer is suitable for recording AOBP in clinical practice.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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