MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415005525 · doi:10.1370/afm.23.s1.8213

Aneroid Sphygmomanometer Calibration: A Looming Iceberg of Imprecision?

2025· article· en· W4415005525 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Skalk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSphygmomanometerPrimary careBlood pressureCalibrationPressure measurementCertificateGeneral practice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Mechanical “aneroid sphygmomanometers” (ASMs) continue to have a role in blood pressure assessment. Unfortunately, ASM components can deform with use, leading to inaccuracy. Although manufacturers recommend annual ASM retesting, this rarely occurs, potentially leading to errors in hypertension diagnosis/treatment. There are no modern-day assessments of calibration for the aging ASMs in community medical clinics, and no data to guide physicians on how often retesting is needed. Objective To evaluate the calibration of ASMs in primary care clinics and examine correlations between miscalibration and device age and usage. Study Design and Analysis Volunteer primary care clinics across Alberta, Canada underwent site visits to assess calibration of all clinic ASMs. Clinicians additionally estimated ASM age and total inflations, and provided calibration history. Degree of miscalibration was presented graphically – broken down by median splits of ASM age, and total inflations. Setting 25 primary care clinics widely-distributed across the province of Alberta, Canada from June to July 2024. Population Studied Assessment of all ASMs utilized by clinic physicians. Instrument A standardized reference manometer (a SPER Scientific 30PSI manometer model 840082 with Jan 5 2024 certificate of calibration) was used to measure ASM calibration. Outcome Measures Percentage of ASMs miscalibrated by 5-10 mmHg, and >10 mmHg, at pressures of 50, 100, 150 and 200 mmHg. Results We assessed 288 ASMs used by 216 physicians. Median ASM age was 11 years (range: 4 months to 40 years), and median number of inflations was 12,480 (range: 0 to 50,960). Miscalibrations of 5-10 mmHg were observed in 1.0% of devices at 50 mmHg, 0.7% at 100 mmHg, 1.0% at 150 mmHg, and 2.1% at 200 mmHg. For miscalibration exceeding 10 mmHg, the proportions were 0% at 50 and 100 mmHg, and 0.3% at 150 and 200 mmHg. Age had no influence on the likelihood of miscalibration, while a higher number of inflations (>12,480) appeared to increase the likelihood of miscalibration slightly. Conclusions The vast majority of ASMs were calibrated within 5 mmHg across all pressures, suggesting ASMs in primary care settings are generally reliable, possibly due to reduced frequency of use following the introduction of automated blood pressure monitors. Over a typical 40-year primary care career, newly purchased ASMs are unlikely to require replacement if used infrequently, alongside an automated device.

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)0.075
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.144
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 score0.096
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0750.144
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.198
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 topicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationFrench-language works237,207