MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035557978 · doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7233.479

Obstructive sleep apnoea syndrome as a risk factor for hypertension: population study

2000· letter· en· W2035557978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peretz Lavie

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2000
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicObstructive Sleep Apnea Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePolysomnographyBlood pressureRisk factorBody mass indexOdds ratioMorningPopulationLogistic regressionEveningInternal medicineSleep (system call)CardiologyApnea

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether sleep apnoea syndrome is an independent risk factor for hypertension. DESIGN: Population study. SETTING: Sleep clinic in Toronto. PARTICIPANTS: 2,677 adults, aged 20-85 years, referred to the sleep clinic with suspected sleep apnoea syndrome. OUTCOME MEASURES: Medical history, demographic data, morning and evening blood pressure, and whole night polysomnography. RESULTS: Blood pressure and number of patients with hypertension increased linearly with severity of sleep apnoea, as shown by the apnoea-hypopnoea index. Multiple regression analysis of blood pressure levels of all patients not taking antihypertensives showed that apnoea was a significant predictor of both systolic and diastolic blood pressure after adjustment for age, body mass index, and sex. Multiple logistic regression showed that each additional apnoeic event per hour of sleep increased the odds of hypertension by about 1%, whereas each 10% decrease in nocturnal oxygen saturation increased the odds by 13%. CONCLUSION: Sleep apnoea syndrome is profoundly associated with hypertension independent of all relevant risk factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1,025
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicObstructive Sleep Apnea ResearchFrench-language works237,207