Using simplified blood pressure tables to avoid underdiagnosing childhood hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have revealed that hypertension remains underdiagnosed in a significant number of children despite their recorded office blood pressure (OBP) exceeding the recommended fourth report OBP thresholds. Simplified OBP thresholds have been proposed to reduce this underdiagnosis of hypertension in children. In clinical practice, OBP screened as elevated according to the fourth report OBP thresholds are referred for ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring to rule out 'white coat' hypertension. OBJECTIVES: The present study tested the usefulness of simplified OBP thresholds to screen abnormal OBP for ABP monitoring referral. METHODS: A total of 155 subjects were retrospectively analyzed with paired OBP and ABP recordings obtained from an outpatient referral clinic. OBP recordings were classified as abnormal according to the simplified and fourth report OBP thresholds. ABP measurements were classified as abnormal according to the ABP reference tables. RESULTS: Simplified blood pressure (BP) tables correctly identified all OBP classified as abnormal according to fourth report BP thresholds (kappa [κ] 0.72 [95% CI 0.61 to 0.83]) for systolic OBP; κ 0.92 [95% CI 0.86 to 0.99] for diastolic OBP). OBP classified as abnormal by the simplified BP thresholds and by the fourth report BP thresholds performed similarly for correctly identifying abnormal ABP measurements as per ABP references (overlapping 95% CIs of the sensitivity, specificity and predictive values and likelihood ratios). CONCLUSIONS: Simplified BP tables, proposed to reduce the underdiagnosis of hypertension in children, can serve as a useful screening tool to decide a referral for ABP monitoring. Future prospective studies are needed to establish these findings.
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 | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".