Assessment of Hypertension Using Clinical Electrocardiogram Features: A First-Ever Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension affects an estimated 1.4 billion people and is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis and intervention can potentially decrease cardiovascular events later in life. However, blood pressure (BP) measurements take time and require training for health care professionals. The measurements are also inconvenient for patients to access, numerous daily variables affect BP values, and only a few BP readings can be collected per session. This leads to an unmet need for an accurate, 24-h continuous, and portable BP measurement system. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) have been considered as an alternative way to measure BP and may meet this need. This review summarizes the literature published from January 1, 2010, to January 1, 2020, on the use of only ECG wave morphology to monitor BP or identify hypertension. From 35 articles analyzed (9 of those with no listed comorbidities and confounders), the P wave, QTc intervals and TpTe intervals may be promising for this purpose. Unfortunately, with the limited number of articles and the variety of participant populations, we are unable to make conclusions about the effectiveness of ECG-only BP monitoring. We provide 13 recommendations for future ECG-only BP monitoring studies and highlight the limited findings in pregnant and pediatric populations. With the advent of convenient and portable ECG signal recording in smart devices and wearables such as watches, understanding how to apply ECG-only findings to identify hypertension early is crucial to improving health outcomes worldwide.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".