Impact of the Absolute Difference in Diastolic Blood Pressure Between Arms in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We investigated the relationship between the severity and presence of coronary artery disease (CAD) and a difference in systolic and diastolic blood pressure (SBP and DBP) between arms or between lower limbs. METHODS: We enrolled 277 patients who underwent coronary angiography. We calculated the absolute (|right BP (rt. BP) - left BP (lt. BP)|) and relative (rt. BP - lt. BP) differences in SBP or DBP between arms or between lower limbs, and assessed the severity of CAD in terms of the Gensini score. RESULTS: The absolute difference in DBP between arms in the CAD group was significantly lower than that in the non-CAD group, whereas the absolute difference in DBP between lower limbs in the CAD group was significantly higher. There were no differences in the absolute or relative difference in SBP between arms or lower limbs between the groups. The absolute difference in DBP between arms decreased as the Gensini score increased. In a logistic regression analysis, the presence of CAD was independently associated with the absolute difference in DBP between arms, in addition to male, family history, dyslipidemia, diabetes mellitus and hypertension. CONCLUSION: The absolute difference in DBP between arms in addition to traditional factors may be a critical risk factor for the presence of CAD.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".