MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283765519 · doi:10.1038/s41371-022-00718-5

How to find and use validated blood pressure measuring devices

2022· review· en· W4283765519 on OpenAlexaff
Dean S. Picone, Raj Padwal, George S. Stergiou, Jordana B. Cohen, Richard J. McManus, Siegfried Eckert, Kei Asayama, Neil Atkins, Michael Rakotz, Cintia Lombardi, Tammy M. Brady, James E. Sharman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Human Hypertension · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersWellcome TrustNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesBill and Melinda Gates FoundationNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesResolve to Save LivesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Heart Foundation of AustraliaNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Institutes of HealthU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesBloomberg PhilanthropiesAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureMEDLINEIntensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinically validated, automated arm-cuff blood pressure measuring devices (BPMDs) are recommended for BP measurement. However, most BPMDs available for purchase by consumers globally are not properly validated. This is a problem because non-validated BPMDs are less accurate and precise than validated ones, and therefore if used clinically could lead to misdiagnosis and mismanagement of BP. In response to this problem, several validated device lists have been developed, which can be used by clinicians and consumers to identify devices that have passed clinical validation testing. The purpose of this review is to describe the resources that are available for finding validated BPMDs in different world regions, to identify the differences between validated device lists, and describe current gaps and challenges. How to use validated BPMDs properly is also summarised.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.004

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 head0.203
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.125 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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