MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413015313 · doi:10.2196/62700

Development of a Customizable Web-Based Dashboard for Remote Blood Pressure Monitoring: Feasibility and Usability Implementation Study

2025· article· en· W4413015313 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua Wollen, Thuy D. Nguyen, Charles F Coton, Gina R DeWildt, Gabretta Cooksey, A. Sarah Cohen, Nicholas Hoang, Munachi Okpala, Michael O. Gonzalez, Mengxi Wang, Chigozirim Izeogu, Elmer V. Bernstam, Charles E. Green, Sean I. Savitz, José‐Miguel Yamal, Anjail Sharrief

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities
KeywordsUsabilityDashboardPopulationWeb applicationMedicineComputer scienceWorld Wide WebData scienceHuman–computer interaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Effective blood pressure (BP) management is essential for several disease states, including secondary stroke prevention. Remote BP monitoring used in combination with an electronic data capture (EDC) system offers potential for improved BP control for patients. While such systems currently exist, there are many patient-, provider-, and system-specific challenges these systems currently do not address. In addition, such systems are rarely described transparently and comprehensively in the literature with enough detail to be reproduced by other clinicians. Objective: This study aims to describe the development and design of a web-based EDC system tailored for remote BP monitoring and management to overcome common patient-, provider-, and system-specific challenges. Methods: The EDC system was developed for use in the Video-based Intervention to Reduce Treatment and Outcome Disparities in Adults living with Stroke (VIRTUAL) and transient ischemic attack clinical trial, a randomized study involving adult stroke survivors receiving care for secondary stroke prevention. The EDC system supports remote monitoring using a BP monitor, which was specifically and methodically chosen for its suitability to the population. The EDC system integrates the data from the remote monitors into a web-based application, facilitating real-time monitoring for health care team intervention. The system includes a BP dashboard displaying time-series data, visual alerts, and email notifications for out-of-range readings. Proxy measures assessed system effectiveness in addressing patient-, provider-, and system-specific needs. Results: Seventeen BP monitors were evaluated, and the BlipcareBlip BP800 was selected based on its cellular connectivity, ergonomic design, and application programming interface compatibility. The EDC system successfully linked patient data to the dashboard, enabling real-time visualization of BP trends and provider alerts. A total of 97% (184/190) of participants in the intervention arm engaged in BP monitoring, averaging 1.2 readings per day. Clinicians actively used the system, with mean monthly logins ranging from 19 to 44 per provider. Alerts were triggered for 69% (131/190) of participants, primarily for systolic BP abnormalities. Data transmission delays were minimal, with a median time of 1.4 minutes from data collection to dashboard entry. Outlier alerts were efficiently processed, with an average notification time of 17.9 hours. The system demonstrated high functionality in addressing patient-, provider-, and system-specific needs, supporting effective BP monitoring and intervention delivery. Conclusions: The VIRTUAL EDC system facilitates remote monitoring of BP in stroke survivors, offering a model for similar systems in clinical trials. Clinicians can analyze, track, and interpret monitored data in near real-time, remotely, which may enhance BP management approaches, particularly in communities with limited access to care. This approach has the potential to improve hypertension management for patients and clinicians when standard data transparency is insufficient, standard monitor features are incompatible with the user, or when integrating a commercial dashboard may threaten electronic health record security.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management→French-language works237,207→