Interindividual Variability in Self-Monitoring of Blood Pressure Using Consumer-Purchased Wireless Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Engagement with self-monitoring of blood pressure (BP) declines, on average, over time but may vary substantially by individual. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe different 1-year patterns (groups) of self-monitoring of BP behaviors, identify predictors of those groups, and examine the association of self-monitoring of BP groups with BP levels over time. METHODS: We analyzed device-recorded BP measurements collected by the Health eHeart Study-an ongoing prospective eCohort study-from participants with a wireless consumer-purchased device that transmitted date- and time-stamped BP data to the study through a full 12 months of observation starting from the first day they used the device. Participants received no instruction on device use. We applied clustering analysis to identify 1-year self-monitoring, of BP patterns. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 52 years and were male and White. Using clustering algorithms, we found that a model with three groups fit the data well: persistent daily use (9.1% of participants), persistent weekly use (21.2%), and sporadic use only (69.7%). Persistent daily use was more common among older participants who had higher Week 1 self-monitoring of BP frequency and was associated with lower BP levels than the persistent weekly use or sporadic use groups throughout the year. CONCLUSION: We identified three distinct self-monitoring of BP groups, with nearly 10% sustaining a daily use pattern associated with lower BP levels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".