Evaluation of circadian variation of blood pressure by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in an elderly diabetic population with or without orthostatic hypotension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Orthostatic hypotension is frequently observed in the elderly population and has been previously identified as a significant risk factor for increased mortality. The link between this condition and increased mortality could be due to an abnormal circadian pattern of blood pressure. The absence of a physiological nocturnal decrease in blood pressure is termed the non-dipping pattern. This abnormality is relatively frequent in elderly people suffering from orthostatic hypotension, but its prevalence in the diabetic geriatric population is unknown. The purpose of this study is to compare blood pressure profiles on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) in a sample of elderly diabetic subjects suffering from orthostatic hypotension with those without postural hypotension. One hundred and ninety-eight patients were recruited by mail. The presence or absence of orthostatic hypotension was determined. They all subsequently underwent ABPM. One hundred and thirty-one of our subjects (68%) suffered from orthostatic hypotension; of these, 76% had a non-dipping pattern on ABPM, compared with 74% of the subjects not suffering from orthostatic hypotension (P = NS). This study thus demonstrates the high prevalence of orthostatic hypotension in an elderly diabetic population. On the other hand, we could not demonstrate a correlation between the non-dipping pattern and the presence of orthostatic hypotension. This is in contrast with previous work done in a non-diabetic elderly population. Further studies are needed to determine the effect of diabetes on blood pressure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".