MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380291157 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000003483

European Society of Hypertension recommendations for the validation of cuffless blood pressure measuring devices: European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability

2023· article· en· W4380291157 on OpenAlexaff
George S. Stergiou, Alberto Avolio, Paolo Palatini, Konstantinos G. Kyriakoulis, Aletta E. Schutte, Stephan Mieke, Αναστάσιος Κόλλιας, Gianfranco Parati, Roland Asmar, Nikos Pantazis, Achilleas Stamoulopoulos, Kei Asayama, Paolo Castiglioni, Alejandro de la Sierra, Jin‐Oh Hahn, Kazuomi Kario, Richard J. McManus, Martin G. Myers, Takayoshi Ohkubo, Sanjeev G. Shroff, Isabella Tan, Ji‐Guang Wang, Yuan‐Ting Zhang, Reinhold Kreutz, Eoin OʼBrien, Ramakrishna Mukkamala

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureInternal medicineCardiologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: There is intense effort to develop cuffless blood pressure (BP) measuring devices, and several are already on the market claiming that they provide accurate measurements. These devices are heterogeneous in measurement principle, intended use, functions, and calibration, and have special accuracy issues requiring different validation than classic cuff BP monitors. To date, there are no generally accepted protocols for their validation to ensure adequate accuracy for clinical use. OBJECTIVE: This statement by the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability recommends procedures for validating intermittent cuffless BP devices (providing measurements every >30 sec and usually 30-60 min, or upon user initiation), which are most common. VALIDATION PROCEDURES: Six validation tests are defined for evaluating different aspects of intermittent cuffless devices: static test (absolute BP accuracy); device position test (hydrostatic pressure effect robustness); treatment test (BP decrease accuracy); awake/asleep test (BP change accuracy); exercise test (BP increase accuracy); and recalibration test (cuff calibration stability over time). Not all these tests are required for a given device. The necessary tests depend on whether the device requires individual user calibration, measures automatically or manually, and takes measurements in more than one position. CONCLUSION: The validation of cuffless BP devices is complex and needs to be tailored according to their functions and calibration. These ESH recommendations present specific, clinically meaningful, and pragmatic validation procedures for different types of intermittent cuffless devices to ensure that only accurate devices will be used in the evaluation and management of hypertension.

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)0.083
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.103
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0830.103
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0080.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0090.004
Research integrity0.0120.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.012

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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.139 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations119
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207