MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066628347 · doi:10.1002/ajhb.1100

Familial risk of high blood pressure in the Canadian population

2001· article· en· W2066628347 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peter T. Katzmarzyk, Tuomo Rankinen, Louis Përusse, D. C. Rao, Claude Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Human Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalYork University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesMedical Research Council Canada
KeywordsBlood pressurePercentileMedicinePopulationDemographyBody mass indexProbandFirst-degree relativesInternal medicineFamily historyStatisticsBiologyEnvironmental healthMathematicsGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Familial risk ratios for high blood pressure were estimated in a representative sample of the Canadian population. The sample consisted of 14,069 participants 7-69 years of age from 5,753 families participating in the 1981 Canada Fitness Survey. Resting systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressures were adjusted for the effects of body mass index using regression procedures. Varying degrees of high blood pressure were defined as the 75(th), 85(th), and 95(th) percentiles of age- and sex-specific values. Age- and sex-standardized risk ratios (SRRs) were calculated comparing the prevalences in the general population to those in spouses and first-degree relatives of probands with high blood pressure. SRRs for the 95(th) percentile were, for SBP and DBP, respectively, 1.37 and 1.45 in spouses and 1.33 and 2.36 in first-degree relatives of probands. SRRs decrease with decreasing percentile cut-offs used to define high blood pressure (95(th) > 85(th) > 75(th)), and SRRs are generally higher in first-degree relatives than in spouses, particularly for DBP. The results indicate significant familial risk for high blood pressure in the Canadian population, and the pattern of SRRs suggests that genetic factors may be responsible for a portion of the risk.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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