Validating the accuracy of Omron HBP-1320 electronic blood pressure monitor in pediatric and adult populations according to Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (ISO 81060-2:2018/Amd 1:2020)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the accuracy of the Omron HBP-1320 electronic blood pressure (BP) monitor for ambulatory BP measurement in both pediatric and adult populations according to the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) (ISO 81060-2:2018/Amd 1:2020) protocol. METHODS: Subjects who met age, gender, BP, and cuff distribution criteria specified by the AAMI/ESH/ISO (ISO 81060-2:2018/Amd1:2020) protocol were recruited for this study. BP measurements were performed using the same-arm sequential measurement method. The test device was equipped with cuffs suitable for arm circumferences ranging from 12.0 to 42.0 cm. RESULTS: A total of 87 participants were initially recruited, with 85 (35 children and 50 adults) included in the final analysis after excluding two participants. The mean age of all participants was 38.1 ± 28.98 years, with children averaging 6.7 ± 2.23 years and adults 60.1 ± 15.39 years. For validation criterion 1, the mean ± SD of differences between the test device and reference BP measurements was 2.3 ± 5.47 mmHg for SBP and 1.3 ± 5.65 mmHg for DBP. Both mean differences were ≤5 mmHg, and SDs ≤ 8 mmHg, meeting the criterion. For validation criterion 2, the mean differences were 2.3 ± 3.93 mmHg for SBP and 1.3 ± 5.13 mmHg for DBP, satisfying the thresholds of ≤6.55 mmHg for SBP and ≤6.82 mmHg for DBP. CONCLUSION: The Omron HBP-1320 electronic BP monitor meets the requirements of the AAMI/ESH/ISO (ISO 81060-2:2018/Amd 1:2020) validation standard for adults and children.
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 | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".