Prediction Algorithms for Blood Pressure Based on Pulse Wave Velocity Using Health Checkup Data in Healthy Korean Men: Algorithm Development and Validation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pulse transit time and pulse wave velocity (PWV) are related to blood pressure (BP), and there were continuous attempts to use these to predict BP through wearable devices. However, previous studies were conducted on a small scale and could not confirm the relative importance of each variable in predicting BP. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to predict systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure based on PWV and to evaluate the relative importance of each clinical variable used in BP prediction models. METHODS: This study was conducted on 1362 healthy men older than 18 years who visited the Samsung Medical Center. The systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure were estimated using the multiple linear regression method. Models were divided into two groups based on age: younger than 60 years and 60 years or older; 200 seeds were repeated in consideration of partition bias. Mean of error, absolute error, and root mean square error were used as performance metrics. RESULTS: The model divided into two age groups (younger than 60 years and 60 years and older) performed better than the model without division. The performance difference between the model using only three variables (PWV, BMI, age) and the model using 17 variables was not significant. Our final model using PWV, BMI, and age met the criteria presented by the American Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. The prediction errors were within the range of about 9 to 12 mmHg that can occur with a gold standard mercury sphygmomanometer. CONCLUSIONS: Dividing age based on the age of 60 years showed better BP prediction performance, and it could show good performance even if only PWV, BMI, and age variables were included. Our final model with the minimal number of variables (PWB, BMI, age) would be efficient and feasible for predicting BP.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".