Has Blood Pressure Increased in Children in Response to the Obesity Epidemic?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The associations between elevated blood pressure and overweight, on one hand, and the increasing prevalence over time of pediatric overweight, on the other hand, suggest that the prevalence of elevated blood pressure could have increased in children over the last few decades. In this article we review the epidemiologic evidence available on the prevalence of elevated blood pressure in children and trends over time. On the basis of the few large population-based surveys available, the prevalence of elevated blood pressure is fairly high in several populations, whereas there is little direct evidence that blood pressure has increased during the past few decades despite the concomitant epidemic of pediatric overweight. However, a definite conclusion cannot be drawn yet because of the paucity of epidemiologic studies that have assessed blood pressure trends in the same populations and the lack of standardized methods used for the measurement of blood pressure and the definition of elevated blood pressure in children. Additional studies should examine if favorable secular trends in other determinants of blood pressure (eg, dietary factors, birth weight, etc) may have attenuated the apparently limited impact of the epidemic of overweight on blood pressure in children.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it