Association between habitual sleep duration and blood pressure and clinical implications: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Elucidation of the association between short sleep duration and elevated blood pressure has implications for assessing and managing hypertension in adults. OBJECTIVE: To assess the relationship between sleep duration and blood pressure, and its role in the etiology of hypertension. METHODS: On a systematic search from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PEDro, PsychINFO and grey literature were included articles with participants over 18 years, reported sleep duration, measured blood pressure or diagnosed hypertension, and the relationship between sleep duration and blood pressure was analyzed. RESULTS: Of 2522 articles initially identified, 11 studies met the inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 505 to 8860 (aged ≥ 20-98 years). Five studies (aged ≥ 58-60 years) determined that sleep duration and blood pressure were unrelated. In younger adults, five studies reported an association between short sleep duration and hypertension before adjustment for confounding variables; only the findings from one study remained significant after adjustment. Two studies supported a sex association; women who sleep less than 5-6 h nightly are at greater risk of developing hypertension. CONCLUSION: Sleep duration and blood pressure are associated in both women and adults under 60 years. Controlled studies are needed to elucidate confounding factors and the degree to which sleep profiles could augment diagnosis of hypertension and sleep recommendations to prevent or manage 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 | 0.004 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".