Obesity and daytime pulse pressure are predictors of left ventricular hypertrophy in true normotensive individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate predictors of left ventricular mass corrected for height2.7 (LVMI) and left ventricular hypertrophy in patients who were found to be normotensive with both office and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure (BP) measurements. METHODS: A total of 805 consecutive patients were analyzed. All patients underwent office BP measurements, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring, laboratory measurements for cardiovascular risk factors and echocardiography. Individuals with both office and ambulatory normotension were characterized as true normotensive. RESULTS: LVMI was found to be 34.5 +/- 10.9 g/m2.7 in normal-weight patients and 48.7 +/- 13.0 g/m2.7 in obese patients (P < 0.0001). LVMI was found to be 41.7 +/- 10 g/m2.7 in overweight patients, significantly lower than the values of obese patients (P < 0.005) and higher than the values of normal-weight patients (P < 0.001). These results remained significant even after adjustment for age, sex, daytime and nighttime SBP, daytime and nighttime DBP, daytime and nighttime BP variability and daytime and nighttime pulse pressure (PP). In a multivariate analysis model, in which LVMI was the dependent variable and office SBP, office DBP, daytime and nighttime SBP and DBP, daytime and nighttime PPs and variabilities, day-night SBP ratio, fasting serum glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, age and BMI were inserted as independent variables with weighted least squares regression by sex, the predictors of LVMI were age, BMI and daytime PP (r2 = 0.31). Left ventricular hypertrophy was 17.67 times more likely in obese patients as compared with normal-weight true normotensive individuals. CONCLUSION: Obesity may represent a significant cardiovascular risk factor even in normotensive individuals. Other predictors of LVMI were ageing and daytime PP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".