Gender: does it have a role in blood pressure in Caucasians with well-controlled type 2 diabetes?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Blood pressures are increased in type 2 diabetics presenting an enhanced risk of myocardial infarction and subsequent death. It is controversial whether males have a greater risk of myocardial infarction and resultant death in type 2 diabetes. Objective: The purpose of this study was to review the literature regarding gender in blood pressure and to test the hypothesis that there would be gender inequality in blood pressure in well-controlled Caucasian type 2 diabetics in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia resulting in at least one gender exceeding the Canadian Diabetes Association (CDA) guidelines for systolic and/or diastolic pressures. Methods: Blood pressure were done by sphygmomanometry and using a stethoscope. Results: This study revealed statistically identical blood pressures in males and females which were above the CDA guidelines for systolic and diastolic pressures. Conclusion: It is concluded that neither males nor females as a population in this study are meeting the CDA guidelines for systolic or diastolic pressures and as such may well be at greater risk of myocardial infarction than if they were meeting these CDA guidelines. Ultimately it will have to be determined what approaches are suitable in bringing blood pressures to clinical target endpoints and what role gender may play in these approaches to management of hypertension in type 2 diabetics. However, this was only a very small study and a much larger one would answer whether there is gender inequality in blood pressure among persons with well-controlled type 2 diabetes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".