Galedra
Sign in Sign up

Claim

In the reported study, the wearable optoacoustic device agreed with a reference cuff-based blood-pressure monitor, supporting its potential for continuous cuffless monitoring.

Type COMPARATIVE · truth-evaluable: yes · status at snapshot: ACTIVE · created seq 15575 · qualifiers {"source_edition":"5ac41d9c-e81d-89e9-9213-91c39ffd7431"}

a comma-separated series may list several propositions

Referenced 90 times: checked 1, looked up by assistants 0, viewed 68, shared 21. A count of attention, not evidence.

Topics

Technology · 1efd24fe Public health · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Supported

Score: 0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745

3 of 4 review checks done · 1 counted · 2 by the author only

1 independent evidence lineage · review checks 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM

Main unresolved issue: 2 counted evidence items have no independence review; repeats of one origin may be counted as several coverage:98fdefdc-38e0-8363-ab8d-333133e9d093

Not yet independently audited.Evidence reviewed so far supports this claim, but only 1 of 4 review checks has been done.Every quoted passage was confirmed on the page when Galedra fetched it.

Why?

Strongest counted support: The study reports agreement with a reference cuff monitor and describes potential for continuous cuffless monitoring. weight 1.800000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The passage directly reports agreement with a reference cuff monitor and potential for continuous cuffless monitoring.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Unresolved.

Hide calculation

0.8581 under ledger-default@0.3.0 at snapshot 27745 · state Supported · Review checks: 1 of 4 · stability MEDIUM · 2 sources, 1 independent lineage

Model ledger-default@0.3.0 (the default model, not the answer) · snapshot 27745 · trace sha256:77b0d775036e217d34397d678ddcdef60dfcee18c26cf16f5ffcdc0120133475

Last changed at entry seq 26024; nothing logged since has borne on this claim.

How the number was reached

Each counted link is weighed by multiplying the factors the model declares; a factor it does not declare is not shown. Every factor name below links to what that number means.

LinkWorkingWeightCounted as
530bb07a support relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 1.800000 1.800000
a6f01efc support relevance DIRECT 2.0 × observation DIRECT_TEXT 0.9 × interpretation 0 steps, 1 − 0.15 × 0 1.000000 × authenticity UNVERIFIED 1.0 × extraction UNVERIFIED 1.0 × provenance INDEPENDENT 1.0 × edition NAMED_OR_UNRELATED 1 1.800000 0.000000 (dependent strongest only, kept 530bb07a)

prior 0.50 → log-odds 0.000000 + 1.800000 (the counted weights) = 1.800000 → probability 0.8581

Under neighbouring settings of the same model: 0.7790 to 0.9121, a spread of 0.1331.

Half-even rounding, six places for weights and four for the probability. The same inputs under the same model reproduce this exactly; that is what the trace hash above is for. How a score is worked out explains every factor, why it is there, and what the model sets it to.

Your view

Sign in to register whether you agree or disagree. A view is yours alone and never changes the assessment.

Registered views

Nobody has registered a view yet.

Registered views are personal belief, not evidence: they never change Galedra's assessment. Affiliations are self-declared and shown only for groups of 5 or more.

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

Evidence for

Evidence against

None.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

EvidenceGroupKept instead
9ccd18a8530bb07a

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

3 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

CheckDoneBy
qualifiers reviewedno
opposing search doneno
independence reviewedno
primary source reviewedyes530bb07a, a6f01efc

Summary

Supported. The main support is: The study reports agreement with a reference cuff monitor and describes potential for continuous cuffless monitoring. 8d1719ef

1 further item repeats the same origin and is not independent evidence. 9ccd18a8

A search for evidence in the opposing direction found none. 72f6738b

Review checks: 1 of 4. coverage:98fdefdc-38e0-8363-ab8d-333133e9d093

Generated by stub-v0.1; every sentence cites graph ids.

Contribution history

seqeventdetail
15575APPENDED
15576ACCEPTAUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
15585LINK_EVIDENCEby 1efd24fe (accepted)
15595TASK_RESULTby 1efd24fe (accepted)

Score trace

{
  "claim": "98fdefdc-38e0-8363-ab8d-333133e9d093",
  "links": [
    {
      "link": "1bc4a246-6797-8515-ac74-ba22530bb07a",
      "group": null,
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "7cbd3214-71da-8b51-92c0-d9bc8d1719ef",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "1.800000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    },
    {
      "kept": "1bc4a246-6797-8515-ac74-ba22530bb07a",
      "link": "790f18a8-c74d-83c2-ac3d-b354a6f01efc",
      "group": null,
      "reason": "dependent_strongest_only",
      "edition": "NAMED_OR_UNRELATED",
      "evidence": "34779944-c4d7-8470-bed8-14179ccd18a8",
      "direction": "SUPPORT",
      "magnitude": "1.800000",
      "relevance": "DIRECT",
      "extraction": "UNVERIFIED",
      "provenance": "INDEPENDENT",
      "observation": "DIRECT_TEXT",
      "source_type": "PRIMARY_TEXT",
      "authenticity": "UNVERIFIED",
      "audit_confirmed": false,
      "effective_weight": "0.000000",
      "interpretive_steps": 0
    }
  ],
  "model": "ledger-default@0.3.0",
  "prior": "0.50",
  "variants": {
    "spread": "0.1331",
    "permissive": "0.9121",
    "conservative": "0.7790"
  },
  "code_hash": "sha256:c61a6fdf35a754a0d7e958df149036a083c0eaeb7d2d2e52704ec32b0c36def7",
  "contested": false,
  "stability": "MEDIUM",
  "claim_type": "COMPARATIVE",
  "config_hash": "sha256:86768038080b8ab5233f1e4b7aba10af05b5bb44caa432095150b90e81209809",
  "probability": "0.8581",
  "provisional": true,
  "evidence_sum": "1.800000",
  "snapshot_seq": 26024,
  "prior_log_odds": "0.000000",
  "support_groups": 1,
  "model_dependent": false,
  "review_coverage": "0.25",
  "truth_evaluable": true,
  "assessment_state": "SUPPORTED",
  "review_checklist": {
    "qualifiers_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "opposing_search_done": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "independence_reviewed": {
      "by": [],
      "ok": false
    },
    "primary_source_reviewed": {
      "by": [
        "1bc4a246-6797-8515-ac74-ba22530bb07a",
        "790f18a8-c74d-83c2-ac3d-b354a6f01efc"
      ],
      "ok": true
    }
  },
  "contradict_groups": 0,
  "rounding_boundary": false,
  "posterior_log_odds": "1.800000",
  "not_applicable_reason": null,
  "independence_unreviewed": 2
}