MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 4368504: Concordance Between In-Office versus At-Home Systolic Blood Pressure Reductions in RPM-Engaged Patients with Uncontrolled Hypertension

2025· article· en· W4415794310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Olivia Osborne, Brett Colbert, Wesley N. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcordanceBlood pressureCohortMean differenceCohort studyCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) devices aim to improve hypertension management by providing frequent readings outside clinic, but validation comparing home versus in-office blood pressure (BP) reductions is needed to ensure clinical utility. We compared systolic BP (SBP) changes measured in-office versus at home among RPM-engaged patients with uncontrolled hypertension to validate device accuracy and assess durability of BP improvements via a retrospective, propensity-score matched cohort ensuring comparable baseline SBP and monitoring duration. Hypothesis: We hypothesize that mean SBP reductions will be nonsignificant between settings in the uncontrolled cohort. Methods: Medicare beneficiaries with uncontrolled hypertension enrolled in RPM from January to October 2024 were matched by baseline SBP and total monitoring duration: in-office readings (n=3,399) versus at-home readings (n=3,399). The primary cohort included patients with baseline SBP ≥130 mm Hg (in-office n=2,313; at-home n=2,271). In-office SBP change was defined as the difference between the last pre-RPM clinic measurement and the first in-office reading ≥90 days after RPM initiation. Home SBP change was defined as the difference between the mean of the first seven and last seven home readings during the RPM period. Independent t-tests compared mean changes, and chi-square tests compared proportions achieving a ≥10 mm Hg reduction. Results: In the uncontrolled cohort, mean in-office SBP decreased from 143.2 ± 14.7 mm Hg to 133.0 ± 17.6 mm Hg (−10.2 ± 20.4 mm Hg; n=2,313), while home SBP decreased from 143.5 ± 14.4 mm Hg to 133.6 ± 16.3 mm Hg (−9.8 ± 15.9 mm Hg; n=2,271). The between-group difference in mean SBP change was 0.4 mm Hg (95% CI: −0.6 to 1.4; p = 0.44). A ≥10 mm Hg reduction occurred in 49.3% of in-office patients versus 47.3% of home-measured patients (p = 0.19). The between-group difference was 4.1 mm Hg, favoring in-office measurements (p < 0.0001), with 70.5% of in-office versus 61.6% of home-measured patients achieving ≥10 mm Hg reduction (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: RPM-based SBP improvements at home demonstrate concordance with in-office readings among patients with uncontrolled hypertension, validating device accuracy and demonstrating durable BP improvements. These findings support clinical integration and payer reimbursement for RPM in hypertension management.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 venueCirculationSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207