MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Magnitude of the early morning blood pressure surge in hypertensive patients

2005· article· en· W2103914659 on OpenAlexaff
J NEUTEL, Philippe Gosse, Harold R. Schumacher, Bryan Williams, Yves Lacourcière

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorningBlood pressureMedicineCircadian rhythmCardiologySurgeInternal medicineAmbulatory blood pressureMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess the prevalence and magnitude of the early morning blood pressure surge in hypertensives without significant co-morbidities. The diurnal rhythm of blood pressure and the early morning blood pressure surge (EMBPS) are powerful risk factors for cardiovascular events, independently of office blood pressure. We used baseline data from two large, randomized comparative studies of 1358 mild-to-moderate hypertensives (seated DBP 95–109 mmHg, 24-h mean DBP ≥85 mmHg). Patients had no hepatic or renal impairment, congestive heart failure, or uncontrolled type 2 diabetes (HbA1C ≥10%). Blood pressure was assessed using 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and times of sleep and waking were recorded by patient diary. We calculated blood pressure for the following periods: sleeping mean, awake mean, night-time low (NTL), early morning mean (EMM) and EMBPS (EMM – NTL). 24-h mean±SD ambulatory SBP/DBP was 148±12/93±6 mmHg, and mean ambulatory awake SBP/DBP was 154±12/97±7 mmHg. The mean duration of sleep was 7.7±1.2 hours, with mean SBP/DBP 136±14/82±8 mmHg and a NTL of 124±14/73±9 mmHg. The EMM was 150±15/96±9 mmHg, giving a mean EMBPS of 26±13/23±10 mmHg. Half of the patients had a systolic EMBPS ≥25 mmHg. These data show that, in these hypertensive patients with good glycemic control and no renal impairment, a normal diurnal rhythm of blood pressure was apparent but a high EMBPS was common.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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