Unattended automated office blood pressure measurement in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose We studied the performance of unattended automated office blood pressure (uAOBP) measurement in children, in relation to oscillometric office BP (OBP) and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM).Materials and Methods One hundred and eleven stable treated and untreated outpatients investigated for hypertension underwent uAOBP measurements (seated unattended in a quiet room separate from the renal clinic room, six times after a 5 min rest with the BpTRU device), and immediately before using the oscillometric device. Ambulatory 24 h blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) was performed on the same day in a subgroup of 42 children.Results UAOBP measurements were successful in 106 children (95%), 5 pre-school children did not tolerate to be alone in the room. The mean ± SD systolic/diastolic uAOBP, OBP and daytime ABP were 109.1 ± 14.0/70.8 ± 10.7 mmHg, 121.6 ± 16.5/77.6 ± 10.5 mmHg and 123.5 ± 11.3/73.7 ± 6.8 mmHg, respectively. Systolic/diastolic uAOBP was significantly lower than OBP by 13.6/7.6 mmHg (p < 0.0001) and lower than daytime ABP by 14.4 ± 0.5/2.9 ± 0.3 mmHg (p < 0.0001). The heart rate was not significantly different during uAOBP than during OBP measurements. On Bland Altman analysis the uAOBP underestimated OBP by a mean of 15.6 mmHg for systolic BP and by 8.6 mmHg for diastolic BP. In all 9 children with white-coat systolic hypertension uAOBP was within the normal range (<95th pc for OBP), in six of nine children with white-coat diastolic hypertension uAOBP was within the normal range however, in three of them it was elevated despite normal ABP.Conclusion uAOBP measurement is feasible in school-aged children, its values are considerably lower than OBP as well as daytime ABP and it could help with detection of white-coat systolic hypertension. The clinical applicability of uAOBP in children should be confirmed in further studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".