Hypertension and lifetime risk of stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The lifetime risk (LTR) articulates the probability of disease in the residual lifetime for an index age. These estimates can be useful for general audience-targeted knowledge translation activities against hypertension. There are only a few reports on lifetime of impact of hypertension on stroke events in Asians in whom stroke incidence is higher than Westerners. METHODS: The Suita Study, a cohort study of cardiovascular diseases in Japan, was established in 1989. We included all participants who were stroke free at baseline. Age (in years) was used as the time scale. Age-specific incidence rates were calculated with person-year method within 10-year bands. We estimated the sex and index-age specific LTR of first-ever stroke with taking the competing risk of death into account. RESULTS: We followed 5783 men and women during 1989-2007 for 74 933 person-years. During the follow-up period, 276 (149 men and 127 women) participants had incident stroke. Of them, majority were cerebral infarction; 166 (102 men and 64 women). The LTR of stroke, accounted for competing risk of death, at 45 years of age for men without hypertension was 17.21% and it was 32.79% for hypertensive men. Among the hypertensive patients, participants with stage 2 or greater hypertension had higher LTR of stroke than the participants with stage 1 hypertension. This increased LTR of stroke for hypertensive patients were also observed among women and across all index ages for stroke. CONCLUSION: In this urban community-based population, we observed that hypertension has significant effect on the residual LTR of stroke among both men and women of middle age, specifically for ischemic stroke.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".