ArticleCJC open2024
Assessing Machine Learning for Diagnostic Classification of Hypertension Types Identified by Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring.
Article in CJC open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Artificial Intelligence in Cardiovascular Medicine: Focus on Hypertension.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2026Pooled it
- The role of artificial intelligence in hypertension management.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in retinal image analysis for hypertensive retinopathy diagnosis: a comprehensive review and perspective.Visual computing for industry, biomedicine, and art · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Inaccurate blood pressure (BP) classification results in inappropriate treatment. We tested whether machine learning (ML), using routine clinical data, can serve as a reliable alternative to ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM) in classifying BP status. Methods: This study employed a multicentre approach involving 3 derivation cohorts from Glasgow, Gdańsk, and Birmingham, and a fourth independent evaluation cohort. ML models were trained using office BP, ABPM, and clinical, laboratory, and demographic data, collected from patients referred for hypertension assessment. Seven ML algorithms were trained to classify patients into 5 groups, named as follows: Normal/Target; Hypertension-Masked; Normal/Target-White-Coat (WC); Hypertension-WC; and Hypertension. The 10-year cardiovascular outcomes and 27-year all-cause mortality risks were calculated for the ML-derived groups using the Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Overall, extreme gradient boosting (using XGBoost open source software) showed the highest area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85-0.88 across derivation cohorts, Glasgow (n = 923; 43% female; age 50.7 ± 16.3 years), Gdańsk (n = 709; 46% female; age 54.4 ± 13 years), and Birmingham (n = 1222; 56% female; age 55.7 ± 14 years). But accuracy (0.57-0.72) and F1 (harmonic mean of precision and recall) scores (0.57-0.69) were low across the 3 patient cohorts. The evaluation cohort (n = 6213; 51% female; age 51.2 ± 10.8 years) indicated elevated 10-year risks of composite cardiovascular events in the Normal/Target-WC and the Hypertension-WC groups, with heightened 27-year all-cause mortality observed in all groups, except the Hypertension-Masked group, compared to the Normal/Target group. Conclusions: ML has limited potential in accurate BP classification when ABPM is unavailable. Larger studies including diverse patient groups and different resource settings are warranted.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.