Improving the accuracy of blood pressure measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The European Society of Hypertension (ESH) International Protocol (ESH-IP) for the validation of blood pressure (BP) measuring devices was published in 2002, with the main objective of simplifying the validation procedures, so that more BP monitors would be subjected to independent validation. This article provides an overview of the international impact of the ESH-IP and of the lessons learned from its use, to be able to justify further developments in validation protocols. METHODS: A review of published (PubMed) validation studies from 2002 to 2017 was performed. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-seven validation studies using the ESH-IP, 59 using the British Hypertension Society protocol, 46 using the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) standard and 23 using the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard were identified. Lists of validated office-clinic, home and ambulatory BP monitors are provided. Of the ESH-IP studies, 93% tested oscillometric devices, 80% upper arm, 71% home, 25% office and 7% ambulatory monitors (some had more than one function). CONCLUSION: The original goal of the ESH-IP has been fulfilled in that in the last decade the number of published validation studies has more than doubled. It is now recognized that the provision of accurate devices would be best served by having a universal protocol. An international initiative has been put in place by AAMI, ESH and ISO experts aiming to reach consensus for a universal validation protocol to be accepted worldwide, which will allow a more thorough evaluation of the accuracy and performance of future BP monitors.
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 | 0.214 | 0.364 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
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".