Comparability of two commonly used automated office blood pressure devices in the severely obese
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
The accuracy of automated office blood pressure (BP) devices in severely obese individuals is unknown. In an exploratory study, we compared standardized BP measurements using a BpTRU device with those taken using a WatchBP Office monitor. Paired t-tests, Bland-Altman plots, and Pearson's correlations were used to compare devices. A total of 62 patients were analyzed: their mean age was 39.5±9.3 years and their mean BMI was 45.1±5.7 kg/m. Fifty-five patients (89%) were women and 21 (34%) had a diagnosis of hypertension. The mean BpTRU values were 117.2±12.7/76.7±9.7 mmHg and the mean WatchBP measurements were 126.6±13.8/79.7±10.9 mmHg [difference of -9.4±11.6 for systolic (P<0.0001) and -3.0±7.7 mmHg for diastolic (P=0.003)]. A Bland-Altman plot for systolic BP showed considerable variability. Only four (6.5%) patients had hypertension (>140/90 mmHg) according to BpTRU versus 15 (24%) according to WatchBP. In conclusion, the mean BP measurements taken using two commonly used automated office devices differed markedly and by a clinically important magnitude. These data indicate the need for formal validation of these devices specifically in severely obese individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 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