Recommendations for home blood pressure monitoring in Latin American countries: A Latin American Society of Hypertension position paper
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Out-of-office blood pressure (BP) monitoring appears to be a very useful approach to hypertension management insofar it allows to obtain multiple measurements in the usual environment of each individual, allows the detection of hypertension phenotypes, such as white-coat and masked hypertension, and appears to have superior prognostic value than the conventional office BP measurements. Out-of-office BP can be obtained through either home or ambulatory monitoring, which provide complementary and not identical information. Home BP monitoring yields BP values self-measured in subjects' usual living environment; it is an essential method for the evaluation of almost all untreated and treated subjects with suspected or diagnosed hypertension, best if combined with telemonitoring facilities, also allowing long-term monitoring. There is also increasing evidence that home BP monitoring improves long-term hypertension control rates by improving patients' adherence to prescribed treatment. In Latin American Countries, it is widely available, being relatively inexpensive, and well accepted by patients. Current US, Canadian, Japanese, and European guidelines recommend out-of-office BP monitoring to confirm and refine the diagnosis of hypertension.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.010 |
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".