Attended versus unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: The main advantage of automated office (AO)BP in hypertension screening is that it eliminates white-coat effect seen in routine office practice, with readings similar to awake ambulatory (A)BP. Recent studies examining the possible equivalence between AOBP recorded with and without research staff present have reported attended systolic AOBP to be 5.8 mmHg higher. Moreover, attended automated SBP readings in 27 211 patients in clinical practice were 25 mmHg higher than awake ABP. These data are consistent with the presence of staff increasing AOBP. In research studies, all types of office BP measurement at target SBP less than 130 mmHg were generally lower than awake ABP, whereas, in clinical practice, attended automated office BP was slightly higher than awake ABP. However, AOBP may still be preferred, if target BP is to be similar to 24-h ABP. Further research is needed to determine the optimum technique for recording office BP at target.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".