Remote blood pressure monitoring and behavioral intensification for stroke: A randomized controlled feasibility trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Measuring blood pressure (BP) at home and remote monitoring can improve the patient's adherence to BP control and vascular outcomes. This study evaluated the feasibility of a trial regarding the effects of an intensive mobile BP management strategy versus usual care in acute ischemic stroke patients. A feasibility-testing, randomized, open-labeled controlled trial was conducted. Remote BP measurement, data transmission, storage, and centralized monitoring system were organized through a Bluetooth-equipped sphygmomanometer paired to the participants' smartphones. Participants were randomized equally into intensive management (behavioral intensification to measure BP at home by texting, direct telephone call, or breakthrough visit) and control (usual care) groups. The primary feasibility outcomes were: 1) recruitment time for the pre-specified number of participants, 2) retention of participants, 3) frequency of breakthrough visit calls, 4) response to breakthrough visit call, and 5) proportions satisfying BP measurement criteria. Sixty participants were randomly assigned to the intensive management (n = 31) and control (n = 29) groups, of which 57 participants were included in the primary analysis with comparable baseline characteristics. Recruitment time from the first to the last participant was 350 days, and 95% of randomized participants completed the final visit (intensive, 94%; control, 98%). Eight breakthrough visit calls were made to 7 participants (23%), with complete and immediate responses within 3 ± 4 days. The median of half-day blocks fulfilling the BP measurement criteria per patient were 91% in the intensive group and 83% in the control group (difference, 12.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.2-22.2). No adverse events related to the trial procedures were reported. The intensive monitoring, including remote BP measurement, data transfer, and centralized monitoring system, engaged with behavioral intensification was feasible if the patients complied with the intervention. However, the device utilized would need further improvement prior to a large trial.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".