MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2979453097 · doi:10.2196/13137

Validation in the General Population of the iHealth Track Blood Pressure Monitor for Self-Measurement According to the European Society of Hypertension International Protocol Revision 2010: Descriptive Investigation

2019· article· en· W2979453097 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Victoria Mazoteras‐Pardo, Ricardo Vallejo, Marta Elena Losa‐Iglesias, Daniel López‐López, Patricia Palomo‐López, David Rodríguez‐Sanz, César Calvo‐Lobo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR mhealth and uhealth · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood pressureMedicineHeart ratePopulationProtocol (science)SphygmomanometerCardiologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: High blood pressure is one of the most common reasons why patients seek assistance in daily clinical practice. Screening for hypertension is fundamental and, because hypertension is identified only when blood pressure is measured, accurate measurements are key to the diagnosis and management of this disease. The European Society of Hypertension International Protocol revision 2010 (ESH-IP2) was developed to assess the validity of automatic blood pressure measuring devices that are increasingly being used to replace mercury sphygmomanometers. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the iHealth Track blood pressure monitor meets ESH-IP2 requirements for self-measurement of blood pressure and heart rate at the brachial level and is appropriate for use in the general population. METHODS: This study was a descriptive investigation. ESH-IP2 requires a total number of 33 participants. For each measure, the difference between observer and device blood pressure and heart rate values is calculated. In all, 99 pairs of blood pressure differences are classified into 3 categories (≤5, ≤10, and ≤15 mm Hg), and 99 pairs of heart rate differences are classified into 3 categories (≤3, ≤5, and ≤8 beats/min). We followed these protocol procedures in a convenience sample of 33 participants. RESULTS: iHealth Track fulfilled ESH-IP2 requirements and passed the validation process successfully. We observed an absolute difference within 5 mm Hg in 75 of 99 comparisons for systolic blood pressure, 78 of 99 comparisons for diastolic blood pressure, and 89 of 99 comparisons for heart rate. The mean differences between the test and standard readings were 4.19 (SD 4.48) mm Hg for systolic blood pressure, 3.74 (SD 4.55) mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure, and 1.95 (SD 3.27) beats/min for heart rate. With regard to part 2 of ESH-IP2, we observed a minimum of 2 of 3 measurements within a 5-mm Hg difference in 29 of 33 participants for systolic blood pressure and 26 of 33 for diastolic blood pressure, and a minimum of 2 of 3 measurements within a 3-beat/min difference in 30 of 33 participants for heart rate. CONCLUSIONS: iHealth Track readings differed from the standard by less than 5, 10, and 15 mm Hg, fulfilling ESH-IP2 requirements. Consequently, this device is suitable for use in the general population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.118
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.118
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.130
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.232 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR mhealth and uhealth→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→