Prevalence and determinants of prehypertension among African Surinamese, Hindustani Surinamese, and White Dutch in Amsterdam, the Netherlands: the SUNSET study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that prehypertension is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality. Little is known about ethnic differences in prehypertension in Europe. We aimed to assess these ethnic differences and to determine the factors associated with prehypertension in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Prehypertension was defined as having a blood pressure 120-139/80-89 mmHg. RESULTS: The overall prevalence of prehypertension was 32.8% (men 37.9% and women 29.9%). The prevalence of prehypertension did not differ between the ethnic groups in men. African Surinamese and Hindustani Surinamese women, however, had a higher prevalence of prehypertension than White Dutch women. In multivariate logistic regression analysis, the odds ratios [95% confidence interval] for being prehypertensive were 2.25 (1.38-3.67; P<0.001) for African Surinamese and 2.06 (1.18-3.60; P<0.01) for Hindustani Surinamese women, compared with White Dutch women. BMI was strongly associated with prehypertension in both men and women. Total cholesterol was positively associated with prehypertension in women, whereas increased physical activity was negatively associated. The independent factors associated with prehypertension vary by ethnic group. In men, BMI was associated with prehypertension in the White Dutch, total cholesterol and low education in the African Surinamese, and fasting glucose in the Hindustani Surinamese. In women, total cholesterol was associated with prehypertension in the African Surinamese; the corresponding factor was the BMI in the Hindustani Surinamese. CONCLUSION: Prehypertension is common in minority women. As a large proportion of people with prehypertension progress to clinical hypertension, targeting these people early with lifestyle-modification interventions aimed at weight loss, increased physical activity, and healthy dietary habits can provide important long-term benefits. The results indicate that the primary foci of such lifestyle interventions should vary between ethnic groups.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".