Validation of the BIOS BD240 home blood pressure monitor in a multi-racial, multi-morbid Canadian population according to the International Standards Organization 2018 Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Assess the accuracy of the BIOS BD240 home blood pressure (BP) monitor and wide-range cuff according to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 2018 standard. METHODS: Eighty-five subjects (aged ≥18 y) with arm circumferences between 24 and 43 cm were studied. Blinded, two-observer, mercury-based auscultation performed using a two-piece cuff chosen for upper arm size was used for reference measurements. Accuracy criteria 1 and 2 of the ISO standard were determined and Bland-Altman plots generated. RESULTS: Sixty percent of the study sample was female and 42% had hypertension. Mean device-to-reference standard differences in SBP/DBP were 0.0 ± 6.2/-0.2 ± 6.3 for criterion 1 and 0.0 ± 4.8/-0.2 ± 5.8 for criterion 2. CONCLUSION: The BIOS BD240 passed the requirements of the American National Standards Institute/Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/ISO standard for both SBP and DBP and can be recommended for use.
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 | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".