S-04-2: AUTOMATED OFFICE BLOOD PRESSURE IN RESEARCH VERSUS CLINICAL PRACTICE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A white coat response which increases BP when recorded in clinical practice has been recognized as a cause of apparent hypertension. Automated office (AO) BP measurement was developed to improve the accuracy of office BP. By recording multiple readings using an automated sphygmomanometer with the patient resting quietly alone, the white coat response which averaged 15 mmHg was eliminated, with AOBP being similar to the awake ambulatory (A) BP. In a Spanish study of 27,211 patients in the community, the difference between awake ambulatory BP and routine office BP was even greater (25 mmHg). Based on these studies, Canadian and American guidelines now recommend AOBP as the preferred method for recording BP in the office. However, European guidelines continue to focus on improving the accuracy of office BP by stricter adherence to proper BP measurement technique. AOBP is considered to be impractical, with concerns that readings take too long, require a dedicated room and lack support from longitudinal outcome studies. In reality, none of these criticisms are valid. Guidelines on the proper measurement of BP in the office have been published as far back as 1939, yet, there has never been a meta-analysis showing that routine office BP is as good a predictor of cardiovascular outcome as the BP recorded under research conditions. Awake ABP is a gold standard for determining the risk of future cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. In 19 research studies, mean systolic AOBP was only 0.3 mmHg different from the mean awake ABP. When data comparing attended versus unattended AOBP in research studies were analysed, the mean systolic attended AOBP was still 6 mmHg higher. The presence of office staff appears to be sufficient to increase office BP. AOBP has been criticized for being too variable. In a recent study comparing AOBP to home BP readings, both types of measurements exhibited similar degrees of variability, yet only home BP is recommended as an alternative to 24-hour ABPM. This conclusion ignores data showing mean AOBP, home BP and awake ABP being similar. Guidelines for clinical practice should be evidence-based. It may not be possible to record AOBP on every patient. However, AOBP readings should be recommended as the optimum method for recording BP in routine clinical practice, whenever it is feasible to do so.
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 | 0.116 | 0.327 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.005 |
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".