Toma única de presión arterial comparada con toma seriada según guía canadiense y europea de manejo de hipertensión arterial en pacientes adultos de consultorio externo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Establish whether there is a significant difference between the value of \nthe single blood pressure intake and the value of the serial intake according to \nCanadian and European guidelines in patients referred to the external office of the \nInternal Medicine department of the High Complex Hospital of La Libertad Virgen \nde la Puerta (Peru). \nMaterial and methods: An analytical. The sample consisted of 320 patients from an \ninternal medicine outpatient clinic who were chosen from the list of patients \nscheduled from June to Septembre 2018 by systematic probabilistic sampling in \njumps of 6 patients, choosing position 4 as the start. In the waiting room while \nwaiting for their consultation they were measured blood pressure 3 times with \ninterval of 5 minutes between each shot and was taken as comparison results to the \nfirst shot(method 1) with the average of the first and second (method 2) and the \naverage of the second and third take (method 3). \nResults: The average systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 121.19 ± 4.17 and diastolic \nblood pressure (PAD) were found according to the method of single blood pressure \ntaking, which was compared with the PAS average of 120.68 ± 4.05 and PAD of \n75.10 ± 2.26 according to the method of serial blood pressure taking according to the \nEuropean clinical practice guideline and with the PAS average of 119.28 ± 4.16 and \nPAD of 74.22 ± 2.26 according to the method of serial blood pressure taking \naccording to the Canadian clinical practice guide When applying the Kruskal-Wallis \ntest, p values greater than the level of significance (a = 0.05) were obtained, \nconcluding that there is no significant difference between the three measurement \nmethods. \nConclusions: There is no significant difference in the value of blood pressure either \nin single or average intake of first and second intake or average of second an third \nintake.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".