MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

[OP.LB01.05] AUTOMATED INTERPRETATION OF HOME BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS WITH WIRELESS BLOOD PRESSURE MONITOR AND HY-RESULT SOFTWARE

2016· article· en· W2478405918 on OpenAlexaff
Nicolas Postel‐Vinay, Guillaume Bobrie, Olivier Steichen, S. Savard, Alexandre Persu, Benoît Brouard, Matthieu Vegreville

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHôtel-Dieu de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEveningBlood pressureProtocol (science)SoftwareMorningPopulationMedical emergencyInternal medicineComputer sciencePathologyAlternative medicineOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Hy-Result is a software designed to help patients to: i) comply with the home blood pressure (BP) measurement protocol (the software does not provide results before having 42 BP readings (3 in the morning and 3 in the evening, during 5 to 7 days, and it sends reminders to the users to increase and complete their measurement); ii) self-interpret their results. The validation study was published in 2015 (www.hy-result.com). We evaluate here the user‘s perception. Design and method: In March 2016, a questionnaire was sent to 3000 patients using Hy-Result embedded in a mobile app (Health Mate) connected with a wireless BP monitor (Withings BP 800). Population: 228 users (7.6%; mean age 48 ± 13 years) responded to an online self-questionnaire. Results: Ergonomy and understanding: 95% of responders find easy or very easy to understand text messages; 79% declare easy or very easy to send results through pdf report; 80 % agree that the recommendations given by Hy-Result are adapted to their situation; 85 % agree that Hy-Result helps them understand their blood pressure readings. Compliance to self measurement protocol: 88% of responders declare the reminder functionality of measurements useful; 68% accept to get a calendar reminder to check again their BP in several months as suggested by the system. Communication with the health care provider. 67% of responders agree that the software may help when talking with their physician about their BP values. Only 1% state that the software may cause difficulties in this situation 32% neither; 23% actually shared their report with their physician. In this subgroup, 73% declare that their physician thinks Hy-Result is a useful tool (for 26% the physician did not look the report). In one case, the physician advised the patient to stop using Hy-Result. Further use: 75% of the responders declare that they will continue to use Hy-Result (15% do not know, and 10% will stop); 61% will recommend Hy-Result to their family. Limitation: Responder bias Conclusions: The Hy-Result software embedded in the Withings wireless BP monitor is well accepted by the majority of responders to this survey.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.688
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6880.606

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207