Telemonitoring in hypertension management for patients with chronic kidney disease: a narrative review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is a major cause of cardiovascular disease worldwide and a major cause of morbidity and mortality in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). The Systolic Blood pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) demonstrated that blood pressure (BP) measurement techniques may have an impact on the achievement of outcomes. Home BP monitoring (HBPM) has several advantages over office BP recordings, including avoidance of white-coat reaction, ability to diagnose white-coat and masked hypertension, detection of BP variability, and better ability to predict cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, all of which commonly occur in CKD. The addition of telemonitoring and management support to HBPM allows remote monitoring, especially when close contact is difficult (e.g., patients in remote/rural areas, pandemic, natural disaster, or patients treated with home dialysis). Although there are few studies that have assessed the efficacy of home BP telemonitoring (HBPT) in patients with CKD, these studies suggest the benefits of HBPT for BP control and even limited evidence that it may improve kidney function. This review, using limited available evidence, assesses the roles of HBPT in patients with CKD, barriers to HBPT implementation in the care of patients with CKD, and discusses newer technologies that can be leveraged in the management of hypertension in patients with CKD.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it