Performance of blood pressure-to-height ratio at a single screening visit for the identification of hypertension in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The diagnosis of hypertension in children is difficult because of the multiple sex-, age-, and height-specific thresholds to define elevated blood pressure (BP). Blood pressure-to-height ratio (BPHR) has been proposed to facilitate the identification of elevated BP in children. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the performance of BPHR at a single screening visit to identify children with hypertension that is sustained elevated BP. METHOD: In a school-based study conducted in Switzerland, BP was measured at up to three visits in 5207 children. Children had hypertension if BP was elevated at the three visits. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV) for the identification of hypertension were assessed for different thresholds of BPHR. The ability of BPHR at a single screening visit to discriminate children with and without hypertension was evaluated with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses. RESULTS: The prevalence of systolic/diastolic hypertension was 2.2%. Systolic BPHR had a better performance to identify hypertension compared with diastolic BPHR (area under the ROC curve: 0.95 vs. 0.84). The highest performance was obtained with a systolic BPHR threshold set at 0.80 mmHg/cm (sensitivity: 98%; specificity: 85%; PPV: 12%; and NPV: 100%) and a diastolic BPHR threshold set at 0.45 mmHg/cm (sensitivity: 79%; specificity: 70%; PPV: 5%; and NPV: 99%). The PPV was higher among tall or overweight children. CONCLUSION: BPHR at a single screening visit had a high performance to identify hypertension in children, although the low prevalence of hypertension led to a low PPV.
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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".