MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403811438 · doi:10.1681/asn.202414e0v889

Derivation and Validation of a Novel Automated Algorithm for Staging Infant Blood Pressures

2024· article· en· W4403811438 on OpenAlexaff
C. Williams, Natasha Jawa, Vedran Cockovski, Sophia Nunes, Adree Khondker, Chia Wei Teoh, Seetha Radhakrishnan, Michael Zappitelli

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNon-Invasive Vital Sign Monitoring
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Infant blood pressure (BP) is assessed by visual evaluation of sex and age specific BP curves (i.e., “manual staging”). Manual staging is time consuming and error prone, but is the standard method to assess infant BP. We developed and evaluated accuracy of a novel computerized algorithm to stage BP category in infants. Methods: We retrospectively acquired BP data in electronic health records (EHRs) from infants hospitalized at a quaternary healthcare center between June 2018-August 2019. Infants <1 year old with paired systolic/diastolic BP were included. First or last admission BP was randomly selected for evaluation. An algorithm to estimate published BP curves was created by digitizing age and sex-based infant BP cutoff curves into a series of points, then deriving each curve's equation of best fit via regression. All BP’s were staged manually by two raters (normal, elevated or hypertensive [stage 1 or 2]). The algorithm was evaluated for agreement (using Cohen’s kappa and % agreement) with manual staging. Results: Of 2407 BP measurements, 1304 patients were staged as normal, 298 elevated BP, and 805 hypertensive by manual staging (inter-rater agreement for manual staging was kappa 0.82 [0.58-1.00]). By the algorithm, 1368 had normal BP, 323 elevated BP and 716 hypertensive. Agreement between manual and algorithm classification was 89.4% (kappa 0.83 [0.82-0.85]). Discrepancy between manual vs. algorithm BP staging was noted for 255 BPs. Five BPs (2% of errors) were incorrectly staged by the algorithm and correctly staged by manual staging; 63 BP’s (24.7% of errors) were incorrectly staged by manual staging and correctly staged by the algorithm. The remaining discrepancies (73.3% of errors) were BPs on/near the curve at the border of normal vs. abnormal BP. The algorithm has been made into a ShinyApp (developed by A. Khondker), available at https://sickkidsnephrology.shinyapps.io/InfantHypertension/ (Figure 1). Conclusion: The new infant BP staging algorithm has strong agreement with manual staging and may be used to stage BP in infants in the clinical setting and within EHRs.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicNon-Invasive Vital Sign MonitoringFrench-language works237,207