Cardiovascular disease and hypertension among adults with bipolar I disorder in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite ample evidence of excess cardiovascular mortality in bipolar disorder (BD), few studies have demonstrated increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or hypertension (HTN) in BD. We therefore examined this topic in a representative epidemiologic sample. METHOD: The 2001-2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions was used to determine whether prevalence of physician-diagnosed CVD and HTN is elevated among subjects with lifetime bipolar I disorder (BD-I), and whether CVD and HTN are prevalent at earlier ages among subjects with BD-I. RESULTS: The age-, race-, and sex-adjusted prevalence of CVD was significantly greater among subjects with BD-I versus controls [odds ratio (OR) = 4.95, 95% confidence interval (CI): 4.27-5.75] and versus subjects with major depressive disorder [(MDD); OR =1.80, 95% CI: 1.52-2.14], as was the prevalence of HTN (OR = 2.38, 95% CI: 2.16-2.62 versus controls, OR = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.30-1.61 versus MDD; p < 0.0001 for all). Controlling additionally for marital status, education, income, obesity, smoking, anxiety disorders, and substance use disorders did not substantially alter these findings. The mean age of BD-I subjects with CVD and HTN was 14 and 13 years younger, respectively, than controls with CVD and HTN. CONCLUSIONS: Adults with BD-I are at increased risk of CVD and HTN, prevalent over a decade earlier than non-BD adults. Strategies are needed to prevent excessive and premature cardiovascular burden in BD-I.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".