Emergence of Sex Differences in Prevalence of High Systolic Blood Pressure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High systolic blood pressure (SBP) occurs more frequently both among men and boys than among women and girls. No longitudinal study has investigated whether the impact of SBP determinants differ according to sex in youth. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 1999 and 2005, an adolescent cohort (n=1267) completed a questionnaire survey and underwent biannual blood pressure and anthropometric assessment (grades 7, 9, and 11). Boys accounted for approximately 50% of those with high SBP at grade 7 and 9 assessments but 67% of those with high SBP at the grade 11 assessment. As computed through a generalized estimating equations logistic regression model (sex, age, sex and age interaction term, overweight, physical activity, sedentary behavior, heart rate, household income, tobacco use, and 4 language categories), the likelihood of high SBP values among boys compared with girls was 1.29 (95% CI, 0.77 to 2.16) in grade 7, 1.98 (95% CI, 1.35 to 2.93) in grade 9, and 2.74 (95% CI, 1.52 to 4.94) in grade 11. Although there was a significant interaction between sex and age, interaction terms of sex with overweight, sedentary behavior, and physical activity were not statistically significant. Overweight (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% CI, 1.76 to 3.92) and sedentary behavior (OR, 1.17 for increment of 5 hours weekly; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.33) demonstrated positive associations with high SBP values. Physical activity was inversely associated with the presence of high SBP (OR, 0.92 for increment of 5 activities in 7 days; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Boys are more likely than girls to develop high SBP as they approach adulthood. Even among overweight adolescents, reducing sedentary behavior and increasing physical activity may lower the risk of high SBP.
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 | 0.000 | 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".