Out-of-office blood pressure measurement for the diagnosis of hypertension in pregnancy: Survey of Canadian Obstetric Medicine and Maternal Fetal Medicine specialists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundMultiple hypertension guidelines recommend out-of-office measurements for the diagnosis of hypertension in non-pregnant adults, whereas pregnancy guidelines recommend in-office blood pressure measurements. The objective of our study was to determine how Canadian Obstetric Medicine and Maternal Fetal Medicine specialists measure blood pressure in pregnancy.MethodsAn email survey was sent to 69 Canadian Obstetric Medicine and Maternal Fetal Medicine specialists in academic centers across Canada to explore the practice patterns of blood pressure measurement in pregnant women.ResultsThe response rate was 48%. The majority of respondents (63.6%) preferred office blood pressure measurement for diagnosing hypertension, but relied on home blood pressure readings for ongoing monitoring and management of hypertension during pregnancy (59.4%). The preferred method of out-of-office blood pressure measurement was home monitoring; 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was not used due to limited availability and cost.ConclusionsThere is wide practice variation in methods of measuring blood pressure among Canadian specialists managing hypertension in pregnancy.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".