A pilot study of electronic blood pressure interpretation of home blood pressure readings in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Home blood pressure (BP) monitoring is an acceptable method with high accuracy and acceptability amongst patients. It has the potential to save many hours of clinical time and is less likely to suffer from white coat bias. However, it can raise anxiety in patients who may not interpret readings immediately. AIM: A pilot study using an auto formatted excel spreadsheet which gave instantaneous colour coded feedback was sent to patients to assess its acceptability. METHOD: This auto interpretation tool was sent to patients with their consent. It enabled patients to receive immediate feedback about this blood pressure control. A follow-up questionnaire was later sent to ask the patients and the staff about their experience. RESULTS: 96); of these, 31 responded within 1 month. Patient satisfaction was high; 74% preferred the electronic tool, 77% found the colour indicator reassuring, and 87% wanted to continue the electronic interpretation tool regardless of their initial preference. Staff satisfaction was excellent at 100%. CONCLUSION: This hypertension triage tool allows for interpretation by patients and non-clinicians with benefits of instantaneous reassurance, user and provider satisfaction all at reduced costs. Patients without MS Excel could not use this tool. The pilot study reinforced our hypothesis that such a modality has the potential to increase patient satisfaction and safety, and can be applied to a larger number of patients. Eventually an NHS app could be developed and rolled out for the large population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".