MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072952413 · doi:10.1097/mbp.0b013e3283052fd0

Blood pressure abnormalities in children with chronic kidney disease

2008· article· en· W2072952413 on OpenAlexaff
Janis M. Dionne, Margaret M. Turik, R. Morrison Hurley

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood Pressure Monitoring · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatory blood pressureBlood pressureKidney diseaseInternal medicineNocturnalRenal functionAmbulatoryDiastoleProteinuriaCardiologyPediatricsKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Disturbances of blood pressure (BP) rhythms have been demonstrated in patients with various degrees of renal impairment. The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of BP abnormalities in children with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and evaluate possible factors associated with nocturnal BP abnormalities. METHODS: 42 children between 2 and 19 years of age with CKD stages 2-5 completed 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with daytime hypertension was less than 10% but rates were higher at nighttime where 14% had systolic and 24% diastolic hypertension. A similar percentage of patients had a BP load >50%. BP abnormalities that were not evident in clinic BP readings were identified in 49% of the participants. The nocturnal BP dipping percentage tended to decrease as the estimated glomerular filtration rate decreased. Proteinuria was significantly associated with nocturnal BP nondipping. CONCLUSION: 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring may provide additional insight into hypertension in pediatric patients as early as CKD stage 2. Several BP abnormalities were identified that were not evident in casual BP measurements including nocturnal hypertension, elevated BP load, and nocturnal BP nondipping.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations23
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood Pressure MonitoringSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207