Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Automated Office Blood Pressure Readings After Zero or Five Minutes of Rest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the Zero to Five study was to compare automated office blood pressure (AOBP) readings obtained after either 0 or 5 minutes of antecedent rest in relation to the awake ambulatory blood pressure. AOBP is recommended in different jurisdictions following either a 0- or 5-minute rest. This was a prospective, randomized, 2 arm, trial with blinded outcomes, recruiting adult patients referred for ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Participants had an AOBP measurement performed according to clinical practice guidelines with an OMRON HEM-907XL set to measure after 0 or 5 minutes of rest. The primary outcome was the difference between the mean AOBP and mean awake ABPM in the 0-minute wait group versus that in the 5-minute wait group. The study enrolled 618 participants, mean age 57.1 years, 52% women. For the 0-minute rest group, the mean AOBP was 141.2/83.1 (17.1/12.1 mm Hg) and the awake ABPM was 141.3/83.8 (16.1/10.2 mm Hg), with difference −0.02/0.52 (17.4/11.4 mm Hg). For the 5-minute rest group, the mean AOBP was 138.2/81.7 (16.9/12.4 mm Hg) and the awake ABPM was 143.4/83.6 (17.3/10.3 mm Hg), with difference −5.16/−0.8 (18.6/11.6 mm Hg). The difference of differences in systolic blood pressure (AOBP-awake ABPM) for the 0 versus the 5-minute wait group was 5.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 2.3–8.0, P =0.005) with the 0-minute AOBP measurement closest to the awake ABPM. The Zero to Five study demonstrated that a wait time of 0 minute before an AOBP measurement was closer to the daytime ABPM result than a 5-minute wait before the AOBP. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03732924.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".