The effect of calcium supplementation on blood pressure in non-pregnant women with previous pre-eclampsia: An exploratory, randomized placebo controlled study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological findings suggest that the link between poverty and pre-eclampsia might be dietary calcium deficiency. Calcium supplementation has been associated with a modest reduction in pre-eclampsia, and also in blood pressure (BP). METHODS: This exploratory sub-study of the WHO Calcium and Pre-eclampsia (CAP) trial aims to determine the effect of 500mg/day elemental calcium on the blood pressure of non-pregnant women with previous pre-eclampsia. Non-pregnant women with at least one subsequent follow-up trial visit at approximately 12 or 24weeks after randomization were included. RESULTS: Of 836 women randomized by 9 September 2014, 1st visit data were available in 367 women of whom 217 had previously had severe pre-eclampsia, 2nd visit data were available in 201 women. There was an overall trend to reduced BP in the calcium supplementation group (1-2.5mmHg) although differences were small and not statistically significant. In the subgroup with previous severe pre-eclampsia, the mean diastolic BP change in the calcium group (-2.6mmHg) was statistically larger than in the placebo group (+0.8mmHg), (mean difference -3.4, 95% CI -0.4 to -6.4; p=0.025). The effect of calcium on diastolic BP at 12weeks was greater than in those with non-severe pre-eclampsia (p=0.020, ANOVA analysis). CONCLUSIONS: There is an overall trend to reduced BP but only statistically significant in the diastolic BP of women with previous severe pre-eclampsia. This is consistent with our hypothesis that this group is more sensitive to calcium supplementation, however results need to be interpreted with caution.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".