Daytime ambulatory systolic blood pressure is more effective at predicting mortality than clinic blood pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the prognostic value of daytime ambulatory blood pressure compared with routine clinic blood pressure in determining mortality. METHODS: Prospective multicentre study in 48 general practices in Oxfordshire, a hypertension clinic in Oxford and a hypertension clinic in London. RESULTS: A cohort of 10 129 patients from Oxford and London was followed up for a median of 8.2 years. Nine hundred and one deaths were recorded (8.9%) corresponding to a mortality rate per 1000 years of follow-up of 10.8 (99% confidence interval 9.9-11.8). Comparing the highest quartile for systolic ambulatory blood pressure with the lowest (>or=160 vs. <135 mmHg) gives an estimated age sex-adjusted hazard ratio for mortality of 1.51 (95% confidence interval 1.25-1.83, P<0.001). The corresponding comparison for clinic systolic blood pressure (>or=174 vs. <148 mmHg) results in a hazard ratio of 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.84-1.24, P=0.9). Comparing ambulatory versus clinic systolic blood pressure (10 mmHg groupings) using nested statistical modelling, removal of the ambulatory blood pressure term from the baseline Cox model (nine 10 mmHg categories) resulted in a highly significant likelihood ratio test statistic of 52.5 (df=8, P<0.0001). The corresponding result for removal of the clinic blood pressure term was 18.1 (df=8, P=0.02), thus reinforcing the finding that ambulatory blood pressure monitoring has greater prognostic significance. Ambulatory blood pressure was also a better predictor of all-cause mortality both in patients taking medication and those not taking medication at the time of monitoring. CONCLUSION: Daytime ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a much better prognostic indicator of all-cause mortality than clinic blood pressure.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".