Validating the accuracy of Omron J760 electronic blood pressure monitor in the general population according to AAMI/ESH/ISO (ISO 81060-2:2018) + AMD1:2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The accuracy of the Omron J760 electronic blood pressure (BP) monitor for upper arm BP measurement in the adult general population was validated following the AAMI/ESH/ISO (ISO 81060-2:2018) + Amd1:2020 protocol. We expect that this device can be used for home blood pressure monitoring, with its measurements serving as a clinical reference. METHODS: Subjects meeting the age, gender, BP, and cuff distribution criteria as specified by the AAMI/ESH/ISO (ISO 81060-2:2018) + Amd1:2020 were recruited. BP measurements were conducted using the same-arm sequential method. The test device cuff was suitable for arm circumferences ranging from 22.0 cm to 42.0 cm. RESULTS: Eighty-nine participants were initially recruited, 85 were evaluated after excluding 4 participants. The mean age of the participants was 48.5 ± 15.17 years. For validation criterion 1, the mean ± standard deviation (SD) of the differences between the test device and the reference BP measurements were 0.2 ± 5.74 mmHg for systolic BP and -0.9 ± 4.69 mmHg for diastolic BP. These results met the AAMI/ESH/ISO (ISO 81060-2:2018)+Amd1:2020 standard, which requires differences of ≤5 ± ≤8 mmHg. For validation criterion 2, the mean differences between the test device and the reference device were 0.2 ± 5.10 mmHg for systolic BP and -0.9 ± 4.30 mmHg for diastolic BP. This criterion was satisfied with criterion 2 of ≤6.95 mmHg for systolic BP and ≤6.88 mmHg for diastolic BP. CONCLUSION: The Omron J760 electronic BP monitor meets the requirements of the AAMI/ESH/ISO (ISO 81060-2:2018)+Amd 1:2020 validation standard.
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 | 0.023 | 0.038 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".