Prospective Study of Sleep-disordered Breathing and Hypertension: The Sleep Heart Health Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Cross-sectional epidemiologic studies show an association between sleep-disordered breathing and hypertension, but only one cohort study has examined sleep-disordered breathing as a risk factor for incident hypertension. OBJECTIVES: To examine whether sleep-disordered breathing increases the risk of incident hypertension among persons 40 years of age and older. METHODS: In a prospective cohort study, we analyzed data from 2,470 participants who at baseline did not have hypertension, defined as blood pressure of at least 140/90 mm Hg or taking antihypertensive medication. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI), the number of apneas plus hypopneas per hour of sleep, was measured by overnight in-home polysomnography. We estimated odds ratios for developing hypertension during 5 years of follow-up according to baseline AHI. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The odds ratios for incident hypertension increased with increasing baseline AHI; however, this relationship was attenuated and not statistically significant after adjustment for baseline body-mass index. Although not statistically significant, the observed association between a baseline AHI greater than 30 and future hypertension (odds ratio, 1.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.93-2.47) does not exclude the possibility of a modest association. CONCLUSIONS: Among middle-aged and older persons without hypertension, much of the relationship between AHI and risk of incident hypertension was accounted for by obesity. After adjustment for body mass index, the AHI was not a significant predictor of future hypertension, although a modest influence of an AHI greater than 30 on hypertension could not be excluded.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".