MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056550391 · doi:10.1016/s0895-7061(00)00749-4

How stable are white-coat hyper- and normotensive effects over time?

2000· article· en· W2056550391 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly B. Zarnke

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWhite coat hypertensionBlood pressureAmbulatory blood pressureAmbulatoryInternal medicineCardiologySitting

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Significant “white-coat” hypertensive (WCH) effects present clinicians with troublesome management dilemmas. Further, “white coat” normotensive (WCN) effects have recently been described. The stability of WCH and WCN effects over a 1 year period was assessed by comparing clinic blood pressure (c-BP) with 24 hour (24h) and daytime (d) automatic ambulatory blood pressure (ABP) monitoring. 313 subjects with essential hypertension of >6 months duration on 2 drugs or less had at least 3 clinic BP measurements (Hg column) taken in a sitting position at a hospital-based hypertension clinic and a 24h ABP measurement on each of 3 occasions at 6 month intervals. ABP results were unavailable to clinicians. Threshold c-BP-minus-ABP differences of ≥+10/or/+5 and ≥+20/or/+10 mmHg for WCH and ≤−10/or/−5 mmHg for WCN were chosen to explore the stability of WCH and WCN effects. 298 subjects (95%) completed 1 year of follow up. Mean c-BP, 24h-ABP and d-ABP were 142/85, 132/81, and 137/85 at baseline (B); and 138/82, 131/80, and 135/84 after 6 (6m) and 12 months (12m) of follow up. Correlations between B and 6m and B and 12m clinic-ambulatory differences were highly statistically significant for all comparisons (p < 0.001 for all c-BP-ABP: 24h and d, SBP and DBP) but accounted for only 7–12% of variation (r = 0.26–0.35). At B, 58% and 27% of subjects exhibited 24h-WCH ≥+10/+5 and ≥+20/+10 mmHg, respectively; 40% and 18% exhibited d-WCH ≥+10/+5 and ≥+20/+10 mmHg, respectively. After 12m, 39% and 10% of these subjects exhibited 24h-WCHz ≥+10/+5 and ≥+20/+10 mmHg, respectively, on B, 6m and 12m measurements; 21% and 2% exhibited d-WCH ≥+10/+5 and ≥+20/+10 mmHg, respectively, on B, 6m and 12m measurements. At B, 15% exhibited 24h-WCN effect ≤−10/−5 mmHg and 27% exhibited d-WCN effect ≤−10/−5 mmHg. After 12m, 11% and 27% of these subjects exhibited 24h-WCN and d-WCN effect on B, 6m and 12m measurements. Single 24h-ABP measurements are insufficient to identify significant WCH and WCN effects and would lead to mislabeling in a lame proportion of hypertensive individuals.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207