Development of tools for a systematic review and meta- analysis aimed at determining evidence-based equivalences between standardized manual office blood pressure measurements and automated methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Blood Pressure (BP) treatment thresholds and targets for automated devices are largely consensus informed. This thesis is part of a larger project, MeasureBP, which aims to establish evidence-based equivalences between automated BP measurement (BPM) methods and the standardized manual office method. The specific objectives of the thesis project are: 1) To develop lists of "essential" and "less essential" criteria for achieving standardized measurements of BP for manual and automated methods. 2) To develop a Quality Assessment tool of eligible studies measuring BP with manual and automated methods. 3) To develop a methodology questionnaire that will obtain information about a study's BPM methodology and to test it against information obtained from the individual manuscripts. 4) To assess evidence-based equivalences between ambulatory BPM and standardized manual office BPM via a subset of databases from the systematic review with 4a) individual patient level data and 4b) with manuscript level data.Methods: A modified Delphi method was applied to develop lists of essential and less essential Standardized Criteria. A Quality Assessment tool was created as a hybrid of existing validates assessment tools. Methodology Questionnaires were developed and in a subgroup of studies, the responses by the corresponding authors were compared against the information obtained from the respective manuscripts. Lastly, a subset of 5 databases that included measurements with ambulatory BPM and standardized manual office BPM was pooled together and a preliminary analysis was performed to assess equivalent values between the methods with individual patient level data and with manuscript level data. Results and conclusions: The lists of Standardized Criteria provided refined classification of the included studies BPM methodology in terms of "essential" and the "less essential" criteria. The quality assessment tool was tailored to the nature of the project and helped refine the overall assessment of the quality of the studies, while identifying specific elements that were not stated in the manuscripts. Applying the methodology questionnaires revealed that manuscripts may contain incomplete information to properly evaluate the level of standardization in the studies' BPM protocols. Finally, in the preliminary analysis, the equivalent ambulatory BPM values from a subset of studies were somehow similar with the thresholds for the diagnosis of hypertension recommended by the Canadian Hypertension Education Program. The final equivalent values will be determined when the analysis with the complete database of MeasureBP will be performed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.367 | 0.659 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.055 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.054 | 0.037 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".