MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181754241 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002922

Home blood pressure monitoring: methodology, clinical relevance and practical application: a 2021 position paper by the Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability of the European Society of Hypertension

2021· article· en· W3181754241 on OpenAlexaff
Gianfranco Parati, George S. Stergiou, Grzegorz Bilo, Αναστάσιος Κόλλιας, Martino F. Pengo, Juan Eugenio Ochoa, Rajiv Agarwal, Kei Asayama, Roland Asmar, Michel Burnier, Alejandro de la Sierra, Cristina Giannattasio, Philippe Gosse, Geoffrey A. Head, Satoshi Hoshide, Yutaka Imai, Kazuomi Kario, Yan Li, Efstathios Manios, Jonathan Mant, Richard J. McManus, Thomas Mengden, Anastasia S. Mihailidou, Paul Muntner, Martin G. Myers, Teemu Niiranen, Angeliki Ntineri, Eoin OʼBrien, José Octavio, Takayoshi Ohkubo, Stefano Omboni, Paul L. Padfield, Paolo Palatini, Dario Pellegrini, Nicolas Postel‐Vinay, Agustín J. Ramiréz, James E. Sharman, Andrew Shennan, Eglé Silva, Jirar Topouchian, Camilla Torlasco, Ji Guang Wang, Michael A. Weber, Paul K. Whelton, William B. White, Giuseppe Mancia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeOmron HealthcareRelypsaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchRegeneron PharmaceuticalsAkebia TherapeuticsSanofiAstraZenecaReCor MedicalServierPfizer
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureRelevance (law)Position paperPosition statementIntensive care medicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper provides an update of previous recommendations on Home Blood Pressure Monitoring from the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability sequentially published in years 2000, 2008 and 2010. This update has taken into account new evidence in this field, including a recent statement by the American Heart association, as well as technological developments, which have occurred over the past 20 years. The present document has been developed by the same ESH Working Group with inputs from an international team of experts, and has been endorsed by the ESH.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.086
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0860.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.004

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations172
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207