PS-BPC03-7: ARE OSCILLOMETRIC WAVEFORMS DIFFERENT IN PREGNANCY?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy are leading causes of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality. Automated blood pressure (BP) measurements are being used in clinical practice; however, understanding of how oscillometric waveform vary between pregnant and non-pregnant individuals remains low. Design and Methods: Pregnant individuals over 20 weeks gestational age and healthy, non-pregnant women were recruited. Healthy, non-pregnant women (HNP) were matched to healthy pregnant women (HP), and pregnant women with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (HDP) by age (± 10 years), arm circumference (± 6 cm), and BMI at the time of BP measurement (± 13 kg/m2). There were seven individuals in each group for a total of 21 participants. BP measurements were done per the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) protocol using a custom-built oscillometric device as the test device and 2-observer mercury auscultation as the reference measurement. Four pairs of auscultatory measurements and four oscillometric measurements were obtained for each participant. Baseline demographics, auscultatory BP and BP derived from slope-based and fixed ratio algorithms were determined. Oscillometric waveform and envelope features were compared among groups. Results: In HNP, HP, and HDP groups respectively: mean age was 31.3 ± 4.8; 32.1 ± 3.6; 32.0 ± 4.4 years; arm circumference 31.9 ± 3.3; 32.3 ± 4.9; 34.0 ± 3.3 cm; BMI 26.8 ± 3.8; 32.0 ± 7.2; 32.4 ± 3.7 kg/m2; mean auscultatory BP (systolic/diastolic) 103.3 ± 11.1/66.5 ± 7.4; 110.6 ± 4.0/56.9 ± 6.5; 132.6 ± 19.0/83.9 ± 13.3 mmHg. HDP had significantly higher auscultatory systolic (P < 0.05) and diastolic (p < 0.01) BP than the other groups. The pregnant groups (HP, HDP) had significantly higher heart rate (p < 0.01); higher pulses (p < 0.05) in the oscillometric waveform (OMV); lower average width in the pulses (p < 0.01); higher pressure amplitude at which the OMW peaks (p < 0.05) with longer time to reach this maximum pressure amplitude (p < 0.05); greater area under the curve (p < 0.01). Compared to HNP, the HDP showed significantly skewed OMW to the right (p < 0.01); greater spread in the OMW envelope (p < 0.05) and lesser random variation in the OMW envelope (p < 0.01). A typical OMV with the 3 groups superimposed is demonstrated in Figure 1. Conclusion: Significant differences in the oscillometric waveform morphology and parameters were found in pregnancy and in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared to healthy controls. These results suggest that pregnancy-specific algorithms may be required to optimize accuracy for oscillometric BP measurement.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".