MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100201709 · doi:10.1155/2013/836387

Persistence and Progression of Masked Hypertension: A 5-Year Prospective Study

2013· article· en· W2100201709 on OpenAlexafffund
Xavier Trudel, Alain Milot, Chantal Brisson

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Hypertension · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePersistence (discontinuity)Pediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives. To examine masked hypertension persistence over 5 years. Methods. White-collar workers were recruited from three public organizations. Blood pressure (BP) was measured using Spacelabs 90207. Manually operated BP was defined as the mean of the first three readings taken at rest. Ambulatory BP was defined as the mean of the next readings taken every 15 minutes and recorded during working hours. BP was assessed three times over 5 years. Masked hypertension was defined as manually operated BP less than 140 and less than 90 mmHg and ambulatory BP at least 135 or at least 85 mmHg. Sustained hypertension was defined as manually operated BP at least 140 or at least 90 mmHg and ambulatory BP at least 135 or at least 85 mmHg or being treated for hypertension. Results. BP measurements were obtained from 1669 participants from whom 232 had masked hypertension at baseline. Persistence of masked hypertension was 38% and 18.5%, after 3 and 5 years, respectively. Progression to sustained hypertension was 26% and 37%, after 3 and 5 years, respectively. Conclusion. Among baseline masked hypertensives, one-third progressed to sustained hypertension and about one out of five remained masked after 5 years, potentially delaying diagnosis and treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.348
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations40
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207