Machine Learning Clustering for Blood Pressure Variability Applied to Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the Hong Kong Community Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability (BPV) has been shown to be a predictor of cardiovascular disease. We aimed to classify the BPV levels using different machine learning algorithms. Visit-to-visit blood pressure readings were extracted from the SPRINT study in the United States and eHealth cohort in Hong Kong (HK cohort). Patients were clustered into low, medium, and high BPV levels with the traditional quantile clustering and 5 machine learning algorithms including K-means. Clustering methods were assessed by Stability Index. Similarities were assessed by Davies-Bouldin Index and Silhouette Index. Cox proportional hazard regression models were fitted to compare the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure. A total of 8133 participants had average blood pressure measurement 14.7 times in 3.28 years in SPRINT and 1094 participants who had average blood pressure measurement 165.4 times in 1.37 years in HK cohort. Quantile clustering assigned one-third participants as high BPV level, but machine learning methods only assigned 10% to 27%. Quantile clustering is the most stable method (stability index: 0.982 in the SPRINT and 0.948 in the HK cohort) with some levels of clustering similarities (Davies-Bouldin Index: 0.752 and 0.764, respectively). K-means clustering is the most stable across the machine learning algorithms (stability index: 0.975 and 0.911, respectively) with the lowest clustering similarities (Davies-Bouldin Index: 0.653 and 0.680, respectively). One out of 7 in the population was classified with high BPV level, who showed to have higher risk of stroke and heart failure. Machine learning methods can improve BPV classification for better prediction of cardiovascular diseases.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".