MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415263064 · doi:10.1161/hyp.82.suppl_1.tac117

Abstract TAC117: Evaluating Wearable Cuffless Devices for Nocturnal Hypertension: Accuracy and Usability

2025· article· en· W4415263064 on OpenAlexaff
Kartikeya Ojha, Sai Masetti, HARJEEVAN KALRA, Caroline Antony, Harvey Antony, ROHIT SHARMA

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian institutionsBrampton Civic Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlood pressureAmbulatory blood pressureUsabilityAmbulatoryWearable computerCuff

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Nocturnal hypertension, defined as elevated blood pressure (BP) during sleep, is a stronger predictor of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality than daytime hypertension. Although ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is considered the diagnostic gold standard, frequent cuff inflations can disrupt sleep, reduce comfort, and hinder adherence in clinical settings. Recent advances in wearable, cuffless BP monitors offer a promising alternative by enabling continuous, less intrusive measurements, potentially enhancing patient comfort and adherence. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that wearable, cuffless BP monitors accurately detect nocturnal hypertension and improve patient adherence compared to ABPM. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we systematically searched PubMed and Google Scholar for studies published through January 2025 using keywords such as “blood pressure Monitoring, Ambulatory,” “Nocturnal Hypertension,” and “Wearable Electronic Devices.” Eligible studies compared wearable or cuffless BP devices with ABPM or other validated methods and reported diagnostic accuracy metrics or usability outcomes. Extracted data included study design, sample size, device type, measurement duration, BP differences, AUC values, and patient-reported outcomes. Results: Eight studies examined wearable, cuff-free BP monitors and found that their readings closely matched those from standard ABPM. Mean systolic BP differences ranged from −1.8 to 3.9 mmHg, and diastolic BP from −2.3 to 1.16 mmHg. Nighttime biases remained within clinical limits, with AUC values up to 1.0, indicating excellent accuracy. Technologies used included photoplethysmography, piezoelectric sensors, and ballistocardiography, which estimates BP through parameters like pulse transit time and pulse wave velocity. A pooled analysis of 16 studies (n=974) revealed small mean differences between wearable and reference devices, with average systolic and diastolic differences of 3.42 mmHg and 1.16 mmHg, respectively, supporting their clinical reliability. Usability studies reported improved comfort, fewer sleep disturbances, and higher adherence. Conclusion: Wearable, cuffless BP monitors offer high diagnostic accuracy and improved usability for detecting nocturnal hypertension. These devices show strong potential as alternatives to ABPM for routine clinical use and home monitoring. Further longitudinal studies are needed to evaluate their long-term impact on cardiovascular outcomes.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.772

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 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 venueHypertensionSame topicErgonomics and Musculoskeletal DisordersFrench-language works237,207