MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Circadian Variation in Blood Pressure: Dipper or Nondipper

2002· article· en· W1979444501 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Larochelle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCircadian rhythmDipperBlood pressureInternal medicineMorningRenin–angiotensin systemEndocrinologyPlasma renin activityAmbulatory blood pressureCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Awareness of an increased incidence of cardiovascular events shortly after awakening has heightened interest in the chronopathology of cardiovascular diseases. Blood pressure varies according to cycles characterized by a reduction during sleep and an increase on awakening. The surge in blood pressure coincides with the circadian nature of various endocrine and hematologic parameters that also have a putative role in triggering the onset of cardiovascular events. The nighttime decrease is absent or blunted in some hypertensive patients (termed nondippers), an effect associated with increased morbidity. Drugs can influence the effect of these circadian patterns. Research efforts are focused on clarifying an underlying pathophysiologic process that could be modified by pharmacologic or other means. Long-acting angiotensin II receptor blockers have an effect on blood pressure over 24 hours due to their long half-life, but could also limit the morning surge in blood pressure through an effect on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone and noradrenergic systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.124
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207