Cardiovascular Risk in Hypertension in Relation to Achieved Blood Pressure Using Automated Office Blood Pressure Measurement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial) reported that some older, higher risk patients might benefit from a target systolic blood pressure (BP) of <120 versus <140 mm Hg. However, it is not yet known how the BP target and measurement methods used in SPRINT relate to cardiovascular outcomes in real-world practice. SPRINT used the automated office BP technique, which requires the patient to be resting quietly and alone, with multiple readings being recorded automatically using an electronic oscillometric sphygmomanometer. We studied the relationship between achieved automated office BP at baseline and cardiovascular events in 6183 community-dwelling residents of Ontario aged ≥66 years who were receiving antihypertensive therapy and followed for a mean of 4.6 years. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were computed for 10 mm Hg increments in achieved automated office BP at baseline using Cox proportional hazards regression and the BP category with the lowest event rate as the reference category. Based on 904 fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events, the nadir of cardiovascular events was at the systolic pressure category of 110 to 119 mm Hg, which was lower than the next highest category of 120 to 129 mm Hg (hazard ratio 1.30 [1.01, 1.66]). The hazard ratio for diastolic pressure was relatively unchanged above 60 mm Hg. Pulse pressure exhibited an increase in hazard ratio (1.33 [1.02, 1.72]) at ≥80 mm Hg. These results using automated office BP measurement in a usual treatment setting extend the finding in SPRINT of an optimum target systolic BP of <120 mm Hg to routine clinical practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".