Blood Pressure Measurement in Severely Obese Patients: Validation of the Forearm Approach in Different Arm Positions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood pressure measurement in severe obesity may be technically challenging as the cuff of the device may not fit adequately around the upper arm. The aim of the study was to assess the agreement between intra-arterial blood pressure values (gold standard) compared with forearm blood pressure measurements in severely obese patients in different arm positions. METHODS: Thirty-three severely obese patients and 21 controls participated in the study. Pairs of intra-arterial blood pressures were compared with simultaneous forearm blood pressure measurement using an oscillometric device in 4 positions: (i) supine, (ii) semi-fowler with the forearm resting at heart level, (iii) semi-fowler with the arm downward, and (iv) semi-fowler with the arm raised overhead. Degree of agreement between measurements was assessed. RESULTS: Overall, correlations of systolic and diastolic blood pressure measurements between the gold standard and forearm blood pressure were 0.95 (n = 722; P < 0.001) and 0.89 (n = 482; P < 0.001), respectively. Systolic blood pressure measured using the forearm approach in the supine and the semi-fowler positions with arm downward showed the best agreement when compared with the gold standard (-4 ± 11 (P < 0.001) and 2 ± 14 mm Hg (P = 0.19), respectively). In the control group, better agreement was found between the supine and semi-fowler positions with the arm resting at heart level (1 ± 9 mm Hg (P = 0.29) and -3 ± 10 mm Hg (P = 0.01), respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Forearm systolic blood pressure consistently agreed with the gold standard in the supine position. This method can be of use in clinical settings when upper-arm measurement is challenging in severe obesity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".