MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392653720 · doi:10.1097/mbp.0000000000000700

A comparison among oscillometric waveforms in healthy nonpregnant women, pregnancy and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy

2024· article· en· W4392653720 on OpenAlex
Jennifer Ringrose, Sangita Sridar, Patricia Araneta, Lillian Chan, Jalisa Kassam, Mira Wirzba, Kate Greeff, Gillian Ramsay, Winnie Sia, Rshmi Khurana, Erin Bader, Raj Padwal

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Pressure Monitoring · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsWomen and Children’s Health Research InstituteUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressurePregnancyDiastoleGestational ageInternal medicineGestational hypertensionObstetricsCardiologyGestation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Understanding of how oscillometric waveforms (OMW) vary between pregnant and nonpregnant individuals remains low. An exploratory analysis was completed to assess for quantitative and qualitative changes in OMW and oscillometric envelope features in pregnancy. DESIGN AND METHODS: Eighteen pregnant individuals (over 20 weeks gestational age) and healthy, nonpregnant (HNP) women were recruited. Six HNP were matched to six healthy pregnant (HP) women, and six pregnant women with a hypertensive disorder of pregnancy (HDP) by age, arm circumference, and cuff size. Blood pressure measurements were completed per the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) protocol using a custom-built oscillometric device as the test device and two-observer mercury auscultation as the reference measurement. Auscultatory blood pressure and blood pressure derived from slope-based and fixed ratio algorithms were determined. OMW and envelope features were compared among groups. RESULTS: In HNP, HP, and HDP groups respectively: mean auscultatory blood pressure (systolic mean ± SD/diastolic mean ± SD) was 103.4 ± 12.2/67.1 ± 7.9; 109.5 ± 3.1/58.1 ± 6.4; 135.6 ± 18.9/85.1 ± 14.2 mmHg. HDP had significantly higher auscultatory systolic and diastolic blood pressure than the HP group ( P = 0.001). The pregnant groups had a lower average pulse width (mean ± SD: HNP = 0.8 ± 0 s, HP = 0.6 ± 0.1 s, HDP = 0.6 ± 0.1 s; HP vs. HNP mean difference [adjusted P value]: 0.2 [ P = 0.004], HDP vs. HNP 0.1 [ P = 0.018]) compared with the HNP group. The HDP group had a larger area under the OMW envelope than the HNP group (mean ± SD: HNP = 22.6 ± 3.4; HDP = 28.5 ± 4.2; HDP vs. HNP mean difference [adjusted P value]: 5.9 P = 0.05). CONCLUSION: In this exploratory work, differences in the OMW morphology and parameters were found in pregnancy and in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared with healthy controls. Even small differences may have important implications in algorithm development; further work comparing OMW envelopes in pregnancy is needed to optimize the algorithms used to determine blood pressure in pregnancy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.416
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.267 · 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