MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3189742013 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002943

Inaccuracy of brachial blood pressure and its potential impact on treatment and aortic blood pressure estimation

2021· article· en· W3189742013 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de MontréalHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood pressureCuffAortic pressureBrachial arteryEstimationPulse pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Although brachial cuff SBP is universally used to guide hypertension management, it can differ significantly from intraarterial SBP. We examine the potential impacts of cuff-to-intraarterial brachial SBP (bSBP) mismatch on hypertension treatment and accuracy towards central SBP. METHODS: In 303 individuals, cuff bSBP (CUFF-bSBP) and central SBP were measured using a Mobil-o-Graph simultaneously to intraarterial bSBP (IA-bSBP) and aortic SBP. According to the difference between CUFF-bSBP and IA-bSBP, we identified three phenotypes: Underestimation (CUFF-bSBP < IA-bSBP by >10 mmHg); No Mismatch (CUFF-bSBP within 10 mmHg of IA-bSBP); Overestimation (CUFF-bSBP > IA-bSBP by >10 mmHg) phenotypes. Risk of overtreatment and undertreatment, and accuracy (ARTERY society criteria: mean difference ≤5 ± 8 mmHg) were determined. A multiple linear regression model was used to assess variables associated with the bSBP difference. RESULTS: Underestimation (n = 142), No Mismatch (n = 136) and Overestimation (n = 25) phenotypes had relatively similar characteristics and CUFF-bSBP (124 ± 17, 122 ± 14, 127 ± 19 mmHg, P = 0.19) but different aortic SBP (133 ± 21, 120 ± 16, 112 ± 18 mmHg, P < 0.001). In the underestimation phenotype, 59% were at risk of undertreatment (14% in No Mismatch), whereas 50% in the Overestimation phenotype were at risk of overtreatment (17% in No Mismatch). CUFF-bSBP accurately estimated aortic SBP only in the No Mismatch Group (mean difference 1.6 ± 8.2 mmHg) whereas central BP never met the accuracy criteria. Male sex, higher height and active smoking were associated with lesser underestimation of bSBP difference. CONCLUSION: The brachial cuff lacks accuracy towards intraarterial BP in a significant proportion of patients, potentially leading to increased risks of BP mismanagement and inaccurate determination of central BP. This illustrates the need to improve the accuracy of cuff-based BP monitors.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicCardiovascular Health and Disease PreventionFrench-language works237,207