Comparison of central blood pressure devices on the basis of a modified protocol of the European Society of Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Central blood pressure (cBP) and pulse pressure amplification (PPA) are receiving renewed interest with the increase in the availability of noninvasive techniques that enable its measurement. However, to date, there is no standardized protocol to validate their accuracy. Although invasive comparison seems intellectually ideal, it will soon raise technical and ethical issues with the growing number of devices to be validated. We proposed a modified ESH-IP2010 protocol for electronic brachial devices to validate noninvasively systolic cBP and pulse pressure amplification, and used it to compare the newly commercialized Centron cBP301 device with radial tonometry SphygmoCor. METHODS: Radial tonometric SphygmoCor measurements were performed four times alternated with three Centron cBP301 measurements. Each Centron recording was compared with the most favourable SphygmoCor recordings performed immediately before or after and calibrated with Centron peripheral systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements. RESULTS: Following protocol requirements, 33 individuals (21 men and 12 women) were recruited in the low, medium and high peripheral BP range. Systolic cBP varied from 88 to 188 and the difference between the devices was -0.33±3.28 mmHg (m±SD). It fell within the ESH-IP2010 pass requirements for the number of measurements within 5, 10 and 15 mmHg. The PPA varied from 1.13 to 2.09 and the difference between devices was -0.03±0.11, which showed good agreement for the PPA. CONCLUSION: The Centron cBP301 device was compared with the similarly calibrated SphygmoCor with a modified ESH-IP2010 protocol. It provided accurate measurements of systolic cBP and PPratio.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".