PS-C03-1: FULLY REMOTE INITIATION OF HOME BLOOD PRESSURE MONITORING INCLUDING ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION OF RESULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The pressure exerted on the health care system from COVID-19 pandemic is unprecedented. Social distancing and self-isolation called for innovative, readily implementable, and effective short-term health solutions. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of a remote initiation of home health surveillance, including home blood pressure monitoring (HBPM), carried out by confined hypertensive adults diagnosed with COVID-19. Design and method: Individuals included in the study were between 40 and 69 years old with a known diagnosis of hypertension and a recent positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. During the initial phone contact and following electronic consent, participants were directed to a secure online platform to obtain all the information needed to participate in the study. Each participant received at home the equipment needed for vital signs assessment, including a LifeSource® UA-651BLE BP monitoring device. The Sphygmo® mobile app was used by the participants for the electronic transmission of results. Participants had to assess their symptoms and completed vital signs including two BP measurements, twice a day, for 14 consecutive days. Electronic and written guidance was also provided to participants on the correct method to perform the various vital signs measurements and data collection. Results: A total of 46 participants completed the study. The mean age was 54.1 ± 6.9 years and 54% of participants were men. On average, participants performed 12.3 days of measurements, 4.4 BP measurements per day for an average total of 54 BP measurements, Among the 46 participants, 11(24%) sent an email and two participants (4%) made a phone call for technical assistance. Conclusions: In a pandemic context, among hypertensive participants with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, the completed remote initiation of HBPM with electronic transmission of results is feasible. Moreover, participants were able to perform nearly fourteen days of BP measurements including self-assessment of symptoms, twice a day, and transmit their data using a mobile app and a web-based platform.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.008 |
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".