The Career Anchor Instrument:A Tool for Comparing Japanese and Canadian Career Orientations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When home blood pressure (HBP) measurements are taken, the readings can be registered manually by the patient and/or stored in the device's memory. The instructions provided by healthcare professionals would be particularly relevant to guarantee the reliability of manual blood pressure (BP) figures and enhance clinical decision making. The aim of this study is assess the agreement between HBP measurements manually registered by patients and those stored in the device's memory after an educational session provided by community pharmacists. Secondary data of the MEPAFAR and the Palmera studies have been used in this analysis. All the (treated hypertensive) patients attended an individual educational session in which they were instructed on how to use the measurement device and properly measure and manually register HBP. The same device and HBP monitoring protocol were used in both studies: 4 consecutive days (three morning measurements and three in the evening). HBP measurements were both manually registered by patients and stored in the device's memory. To evaluate the agreement between BP figures, Lin's correlation-concordance coefficient and κ coefficient were used for quantitative and qualitative agreement, respectively. One hundred and sixty-sixty patients were included in this analysis. The agreement between the average manual and the stored HBP was very good [systolic=0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.99-0.99; diastolic=0.99, 95% CI: 0.99-1.00]. 99.4% of patients were classified in the same category by both alternatives [κ index=0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-1.00)]. In this sample of treated hypertensive patients, the agreement between manually registered and stored BP figures was very good. This high concordance may be explained by the pharmacist's intervention.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".