Recommended Standards for Assessing Blood Pressure in Human Research Where Blood Pressure or Hypertension is a Major Focus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although inaccurate, non-reproducible blood pressure values can result from non-standardized assessments, recommended approaches to standardize blood pressure measurement are often not followed in research studies.An expert consensus of national and international health and scientific organizations developed recommended minimum standards for assessing blood pressure in research subjects where: 1) blood pressure or hypertension is a major endpoint, or 2) blood pressure is likely a major mediator of the research outcome.Minimum research standards are presented for training of observers, technical aspects of assessing blood pressure, and equipment for both adults and children.The standards are based on prior recommendations some of which did not conform to current evidence based methods.All new research should require adherence to these minimum standards on the patient populations described above.Readers need to use caution in interpreting studies if the standards are not met in the defined populations.
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 | 0.271 | 0.548 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".