MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PROGRESSION TO HYPERTENSION IN THE CZECH POST-MONICA STUDY: 10-YEAR FOLLOW-UP: PP.7.297

2010· article· en· W2030871612 on OpenAlexaff
Renata Cífková, Z Škodová, J. Fröhlich, Věra Lánská, Jan Bruthans, Marie Jozífová, Věra Adámková, Markéta Galovcová, P. Wohlfahrt, Alena Krajčoviechová

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortFramingham Heart StudyObesityPopulationBlood pressureIncidence (geometry)DemographyInternal medicineFramingham Risk ScoreCzechCohort studyPrehypertensionPediatricsDiseaseEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The Framingham study showed that high-normal BP (130–139/85–89 mmHg) is associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular disease and a higher rate of progression to hypertension. The aim of our study was to follow up a cohort of individuals with high-normal BP from a representative sample of the Czech population. Design and Method : In 1997/8, a cross-sectional survey of CV risk factors was performed in 3,209 individuals from 9 districts of the Czech Republic (a 1% population sample aged 25–64 years, mean age 45.76±10.6 years; response rate 64.4%), a subgroup of 2,502 was re-examined 10 years later. At baseline, hypertension was found in 781 individuals who were excluded from this analysis. Results : A stepwise increase in hypertension incidence occurred across the three normotensive BP categories; in males, 17.7% of participants with optimal BP, 35.9% with normal, and 63.0% with high-normal BP progressed to hypertension over 10 years; the respective figures in females were 15.5%, 41.6%, and 71.9%. Conclusions: A high-normal BP at baseline was associated with a substantially increased risk of developing hypertension over a period of 10 years compared with optimal and normal BP. Age, obesity, and weight gain contributed independently to progression to 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207