Masked hypertension: different blood pressure measurement methodology and risk factors in a working population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the prevalence of masked hypertension when the same ambulatory device is used for both manual and ambulatory blood pressure measurements and to measure associations with lifestyle risk factors in a working population. METHODS: White-collar workers were recruited from three public organizations. Blood pressure was measured at the workplace using Spacelabs 90207 for manual measurements (mean of the first three readings taken by a trained assistant) followed by ambulatory measurements (mean of every other reading obtained during the working day). Masked hypertension was defined as manual blood pressure measurement of less than 140/90 mmHg and ambulatory blood pressure measurement of at least 135/85 mmHg. Smoking, alcohol intake, BMI and leisure physical activity were also assessed. RESULTS: Blood pressure measurements were obtained from 2370 workers (80% participation, 61% women; mean age = 44 years). Masked hypertension was diagnosed in 15.02% of the participants. The prevalence was higher in men [adjusted odds ratio (OR) = 2.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.86-3.05]. The prevalence in men increased with age (adjusted OR = 2.08 for 40-49 years, 95% CI = 1.33-3.26 and adjusted OR = 1.91 for > or =50 years, 95% CI = 1.20-3.04) and BMI (adjusted OR = 1.78 for BMI > or = 27, 95% CI = 1.21-2.64). The prevalence in women increased with BMI (adjusted OR = 1.65 for BMI > or =27, 95% CI = 1.14-2.39) and alcohol intake (adjusted OR = 2.12 for at least six drinks per week, 95% CI = 1.34-3.35). CONCLUSION: Masked hypertension is frequent and still present when blood pressure is measured out of the office, using the same device for manual and ambulatory measurements. Sex, age, BMI and alcohol intake are associated with masked hypertension.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".