SEASONAL VARIATION IN OUTPATIENT BLOOD PRESSURE IN STABLE RENAL TRANSPLANT RECIPIENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seasonal variation in blood pressure (BP) has been described in the general and dialysis populations, with higher recordings noted in the winter than in the summer. This difference has been attributed to changes in weight, ambient temperature, and length of daylight. In this study, we sought to determine whether such seasonal differences exist in renal transplant recipients, a group with a high prevalence of hypertension. We reviewed our outpatient population of 652 adult renal transplant recipients and identified primary allograft recipients with graft survival >1 year, stable renal function, on both cyclosporine and prednisone, and who had >1 pair of post-first year "winter" (defined as the months of January and February) plus "summer" (defined as the months of July and August) outpatient BP measurements from the same year. One hundred sixty-three patients met entry criteria, from whom 432 BP pairs were obtained. When the most recent pair from each patient was analyzed (n=163), diastolic and mean BP were found to be higher in winter than summer (by 2.5 and 2.3 mmHg, respectively, P<0.01 for each) by a paired Student t test. In a separate analysis using all BP pairs (n=432), systolic, diastolic, and mean BP were found to be significantly higher in winter (by 5.3, 2.7, and 3.5 mmHg, respectively, P<0.001 for each). An effect of season was confirmed in a multiple regression model of common predictors for hypertension, controlling for number of BP pairs per patient. In conclusion, renal transplant recipients demonstrate higher BP in the winter than in the summer. This effect is independent of known predictors of hypertension in this population and may be, at least, partly related to changes in length of daylight and temperature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".