MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334086655 · doi:10.1038/ajh.2008.15

Target Organ Damage in "White Coat Hypertension" and "Masked Hypertension"

2008· article· en· W2334086655 on OpenAlexaff
Vasilios Kotsis, Stella Stabouli, Savvas Toumanidis, Christos Papamichael, J. Lekakis, G. Germanidis, Apostolos Hatzitolios, Zoë Rizos, M Sion, Nikos Zakopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWhite coat hypertensionAmbulatory blood pressureMasked HypertensionAmbulatoryInternal medicineCardiologyBlood pressureBody mass indexEssential hypertension

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In this study we investigated (i) the prevalence of white coat hypertension (WCH) and masked hypertension (MH) in patients who had never been treated earlier with antihypertensive medication, and (ii) the association of these conditions with target organ damage. METHODS: A total of 1,535 consecutive patients underwent office blood pressure (BP) measurements, 24-h ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), echocardiography, and ultrasonography of the carotid arteries. Subjects who showed normotension or hypertension on the basis of both office and ambulatory BP (ABP) measurement were characterized as having confirmed normotension or confirmed hypertension, respectively. WCH was defined as office hypertension with ambulatory normotension, and MH as office normotension with ambulatory hypertension. RESULTS: WCH was found in 17.9% and MH in 14.5% of the subjects. The prevalence of WCH was significantly higher in subjects with obesity, while the prevalence of MH was significantly higher in normal-weight subjects. The confirmed hypertensive subjects as well as the masked hypertensive subjects had significantly higher left ventricular mass (LVM) (corrected for body surface area) and carotid intima media thickness (cIMT) than the confirmed normotensive subjects did (108.9 +/- 30.6, 107.1 +/- 29.1 vs. 101.4 +/- 29.9 g/m(2) and 0.68 +/- 0.16, 0.68 +/- 0.21 vs. 0.63 +/- 0.15 mm, respectively, P < 0.005). White coat hypertensive subjects did not have a significantly higher LVM index than confirmed normotensive subjects (101.5 +/- 25.9 vs. 101.4 +/- 29.9 g/m(2)); they tended to have higher cIMT than the confirmed normotensive subjects, but the difference was not statistically significant (0.67 +/- 0.15 vs. 0.63 +/- 0.15 mm). CONCLUSIONS: WCH and MH are common conditions in patients who visit hypertension outpatient clinics. Confirmed hypertension and MH are accompanied by increased LVM index and cIMT, even after adjusting for other risk factors.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations117
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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