The effect of coffee consumption on blood pressure and the development of hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Coffee is one of the most widely consumed beverages worldwide and is known to acutely raise blood pressure (BP), but the effects of chronic consumption on BP is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies to assess the effect of chronic coffee consumption on BP and the development of hypertension. DATA SOURCES: Ovid, MEDLINE (from 1948), EMBASE (from 1988), and all of Web of Science and Scopus. STUDY SELECTION: RCTs and cohort studies of at least 1-week duration that assessed BP and/or the incidence of hypertension in coffee consumers compared with a control group that consumed less or no coffee. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently reviewed abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Data were abstracted using standardized forms. Risk of bias in the RCTs was examined using the method described in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Quality of the cohort studies were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale for cohort studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six hundred and ten articles were retrieved and a total of 15 (10 RCTs and five cohort studies) met inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrated a pooled weighted difference in mean change in SBP of -0.55 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) -2.46 to 1.36) and DBP -0.45 mmHg (95% CI -1.52 to 0.61). Meta-analysis of the cohort studies demonstrated a pooled risk ratio for developing hypertension of 1.03 (95% CI 0.98-1.08). CONCLUSION: Low-quality evidence did not show any statistically significant effect of coffee consumption on BP or the risk of hypertension. Given the quality of the currently available evidence, no recommendation can be made for or against coffee consumption as it relates to BP and hypertension.
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 | 0.023 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".