PROGRESSION TO HYPERTENSION IN THE CZECH POST-MONICA STUDY: 10-YEAR FOLLOW-UP: PP.7.297
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".