A Meta-Analysis on Prehypertension and Chronic Kidney Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent studies have demonstrated that there is an association between prehypertension and an increased risk of end-stage renal disease. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the relationship between prehypertension and chronic kidney disease (CKD). This meta-analysis aimed to demonstrate the association between prehypertension and the incidence of CKD and identify the impacts of gender and ethnic differences. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library (from inception through March 2016) and article reference lists were searched for relevant studies regarding blood pressure and CKD. Blood pressure (BP) measurements were classified as follows: optimal BP (less than 120/80 mmHg), prehypertension (120-139/80-89 mmHg) and hypertension (over 140/90 mmHg). CKD was defined by estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR)<60 ml/min/1.73 m2 or proteinuria. Two investigators independently extracted the data and assessed the quality of studies enrolled in this meta-analysis using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We performed the meta-analysis using Stata/SE 12.0 (StataCorp LP). The random-effect models were used in the heterogeneous analyses. RESULTS: After retrieving data from 4,537 potentially relevant articles, we identified 7 cohort studies including 261,264 subjects, according to the predefined selection criteria. Five studies were conducted in Mongolians from East Asia, and the other two studies were performed in Indo-Europeans from Austria and Iran. The participants ranged in age from 20 to 89 years, and the proportion of females ranged from 27.2% to 63.8%. The follow-up period ranged from 2 to 11 years. Compared with the optimal BP values, prehypertension showed an increased risk of CKD (pooled RR = 1.28; 95% CI = 1.13-1.44; P = 0.000; I2 = 77.9%). In the sex-stratified analysis, we found a similar trend in women (pooled RR = 1.29; 95% CI = 1.01-1.63; P = 0.039; I2 = 76.1%) but not in men. This effect was observed only in Mongolians from East Asia (pooled RR = 1.37; 95% CI = 1.18-1.59; P = 0.000; I2 = 81.3%) and not in Indo-Europeans. CONCLUSIONS: Prehypertension is considered a potential cause of CKD. Gender and ethnic differences are exhibited in this association.
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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.065 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".