MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3172755179 · doi:10.1097/mbp.0000000000000552

Validation of the BPro radial pulse waveform acquisition device in pregnancy and gestational hypertensive disorders

2021· article· en· W3172755179 on OpenAlex
Adam D Jakes, Julie Wade, Zoë Vowles, Paul T. Seed, Andrew Shennan, Lucy C. Chappell, Diane Nzelu

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Pressure Monitoring · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicinePreeclampsiaBlood pressurePregnancyGestational hypertensionGestational ageObstetricsSphygmomanometerInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To validate the BPro blood pressure (BP) wrist device for use in pregnancy and preeclampsia according to the Universal Standard protocol. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: BP was measured sequentially in 45 pregnant women (including 15 with preeclampsia, 15 with gestational hypertension and 15 who remained normotensive) alternating between a mercury sphygmomanometer and BPro device. RESULTS: The BPro is accurate in pregnancy with a mean device-observer difference of -1.7 ± 6.1 and 0.1 ± 4.6 mmHg for SBP and DBP, respectively. In women with preeclampsia, BPro also met the validation criteria for the Universal Standard protocol with a mean device-observer difference of -2.7 ± 7.1 and 0.3 ± 4.7 mmHg for SBP and DBP, respectively. However, the number of absolute BP differences within 5 mmHg was considerably fewer in those with preeclampsia when compared to the other two subgroups. CONCLUSION: The BPro device can be recommended for BP measurement in pregnancy but should be used with caution in those with confirmed preeclampsia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it