Pilot Investigation of Blood Pressure Control Using a Mobile App (Cardi.Health): Retrospective Chart Review Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The high prevalence of hypertension necessitates effective, scalable interventions for blood pressure (BP) control. Self-monitoring has shown improved adherence to medication and better BP management. Mobile apps offer a promising approach with their increasing popularity and potential for large-scale implementation. Studies have demonstrated associations between mobile app interventions and lowered BP, yet real-world data on app effectiveness and engagement remain limited. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we analyzed real-world user data from the Cardi.Health mobile app, which is aimed at helping its users monitor and control their BP. Our goal was to find out whether there is an association between the use of the mobile app and a decrease in BP. Additionally, the study explored how engagement with the app may influence this outcome. METHODS: This was a retrospective chart review study. The initial study population comprised 4407 Cardi.Health users who began using the app between January 2022 and April 2022. After applying inclusion criteria, the final study cohort comprised 339 users with elevated BP at the baseline. The sample consisted of 108 (31.9%) men and 231 (68.1%) women (P=.04). This retrospective chart review study obtained permission from the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York Institutional Review Board (June 2022, registration ID 22-08-503-939). RESULTS: =5.311; P=.02). Finally, active users had an almost 2 times greater chance of reducing systolic BP by 5 mm Hg or more over 4 weeks (odds ratio 1.932, 95% CI 1.074-3.528; P=.03). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows a possible relationship between Cardi.Health mobile app use and decreased BP. Additionally, engagement with the app may be related to better results-active use was associated with an almost 2-fold increase in the odds of reducing BP by 5 or more mm Hg.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".