Prevalence and Reliability of Inter-arm Differences in Blood Pressure in Young, Healthy Adults: An Experimental Evaluation-Part II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dual-arm blood pressure (BP) measurement is recommended when screening patients for hypertension. The prevalence and reliability of inter-arm differences, however, remain unclear in young, healthy adults. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence and reliability of inter-arm BP differences in young, healthy adults. Methods: Prevalence of systolic and diastolic inter-arm differences using traditional thresholds (e.g., ≥10 mmHg) were examined using sequential and simultaneous automated resting BP measurements (Dinamap Carescape v100, Critikon, USA) in 18 young, healthy adults (25±4 years). Measurements were taken on two separate days to test for reliability. Results: First-day prevalence of systolic BP inter-arm differences ≥10 mmHg was 5.6% (CI 0.1−27.3) when measured sequentially and 11.1% (CI 1.4−34.7) when measured simultaneously, while no diastolic BP inter-arm differences of this magnitude were observed using either technique. With respect to reliability, although nonsignificant (p>0.05), prevalence of systolic and diastolic BP inter-arm differences decreased on a second day, and systolic BP inter-arm differences ≥10 mmHg disappeared altogether. Conclusions: Findings support previous prevalence data for systolic and diastolic BP inter-arm differences of ≥10 mmHg of 0%−13% and 0%−9%, respectively. Nevertheless, these findings were not reliable on a second testing day.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".