MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The relationship between blood pressure and arterial characteristics in clinically normotensive children

2010· article· en· W2266882075 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aaron A. Phillips, Jose F. Peralta-Huertas, Laura K. Fitzgibbon, Terrance J. Wade, Jon Cairney, Deborah D. O’Leary

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityBrock UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureInternal medicineCardiologyPulse pressureIntima-media thicknessStroke (engine)Applanation tonometryCommon carotid arteryArteryCarotid arteriesArterial stiffness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Atherosclerosis is the major cause of cardiovascular disease. In adults, elevated blood pressure (BP) is recognized as a major risk factor for atherosclerotic progression. In children the relationship between elevated BP and atherosclerosis progression is less understood. The objective of this study was to examine differences in central arterial distensibility (DIST) and intima‐media thickness (IMT) as well as systemic pulse transit time (PTT) in normal blood pressure (NBP) and elevated blood pressure (EBP) children. The sample consisted of 104 children (21 EBP, 83 NBP) aged 11–14 years. Blood pressure was clinically normal (on two separate occasions); however, the EBP had a significantly elevated BP in comparison to their NBP counterparts. We assessed PTT, IMT, and DIST using applanation tonometry, ultrasonography of the common carotid artery, electrocardiography, and toe pulse oximetry. No significant differences were found between NBP and EBP for IMT (0.42(0.06) vs. 0.43(0.05) mm, respectively) or DIST (65.3(27.6) kPa −1 x10 −3 vs. 62.7(21.2) kPa −1 x10 −3 , respectively). PTT was significantly elevated in the EBP group (341(23) ms) vs. the NBP (321(25) ms) group. Children 11–14 years of age with elevated BP do not show central arterial changes yet systemic vascular tone appears to be elevated. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.275 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Disease Prevention→French-language works237,207→