The Impact of Mood and Anxiety Disorders on Incident Hypertension at One Year
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Studies assessing the association between psychological factors and hypertension have been equivocal, which may reflect limitations in the assessment of psychological factors. Purpose. To assess the relationship between mood and anxiety disorders, measured using a psychiatric interview, and 1-year incident hypertension. Methods. 197 nonhypertensive individuals undergoing exercise stress testing at baseline provided follow-up data at 1 year. Baseline assessments included a structure psychiatric interview (PRIME-MD), physician diagnosis of hypertension, and measured blood pressure. At follow-up, hypertension status was assessed via self-reported physician diagnosis. Results. Having an anxiety disorder was associated with a 4-fold increase in the risk of developing hypertension (adjusted OR = 4.14, 95% CIs = 1.18-14.56). In contrast, having a mood disorder was not associated with incident hypertension (adjusted OR = 1.21, 95% CIs = 0.24-5.86). Conclusions. There are potential mechanisms which could explain our differential mood and anxiety findings. The impact of screening and treatment of anxiety disorders on hypertension needs to be explored.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".