MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315785988 · doi:10.3390/diagnostics13020291

Reply to Hungerford, S.; Bart, N. Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Applications: Ushering in a New Era of Wearable Cardiac Devices? Comment on “Vischer et al. Comparability of a Blood-Pressure-Monitoring Smartphone Application with Conventional Measurements—A Pilot Study. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 749”

2023· article· en· W4315785988 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Annina S. Vischer, Jana Rosania, Thenral Socrates, Thilo Burkard

Bibliographic record

VenueDiagnostics · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Society of Endocrinology and Metabolism
KeywordsWearable computerBlood pressureComparabilitySmartphone applicationSmartwatchMedicineComputer scienceInternal medicineEmbedded systemMultimediaMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We would like to thank Drs. Hungerford and Bart for their kind comment [...].

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)0.063
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0440.069
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.012

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.254 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiagnosticsSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207