MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984251926 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002289

STRIDE BP: an international initiative for accurate blood pressure measurement

2019· article· en· W2984251926 on OpenAlexaff
George S. Stergiou, Eoin O’Brien, Martin G. Myers, Paolo Palatini, Gianfranco Parati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsMedicineSTRIDEAmbulatoryAmbulatory blood pressureBlood pressureIntensive care medicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

: The diagnosis and management of hypertension is dependent upon accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement. Despite intense efforts over several decades by the international medical community worldwide, the use of inaccurate devices has resulted in the misdiagnosis and poor management of hypertension, which remains a largely unresolved public health problem. STRIDE BP (www.stridebp.org) is an international nonprofit organization the mission of which is to improve the accuracy of BP measurement and the diagnosis of hypertension. STRIDE BP comprises a group of 24 recognized experts in BP monitoring from across the world and operates in affiliation with the European Society of Hypertension, the International Society of Hypertension, and the World Hypertension League. In the first stage, STRIDE BP has reviewed 419 validations of 260 devices and approved 69% of them, providing recommendations on accurate devices for office, ambulatory and home BP measurement in adults, children and during pregnancy. At the next stage, STRIDE BP intends to develop programs for on-line training and tools for use in clinical practice leading to improved measurement of BP and better diagnosis of hypertension world-wide.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.126
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations75
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207