MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518556460 · doi:10.1016/j.wem.2016.06.035

Blood Pressure and High Altitude: An Observational Cohort Study of Hypertensive and Nonhypertensive Himalayan Trekkers in Nepal

2016· article· en· W2518556460 on OpenAlexaff
T. Douglas Sallade, Linda E. Keyes, Jennifer Starling, Sushil Pant, Alison Sheets, David Young, David Twillman, Nirajan Regmi, Benoit Phelan, Purshotam Paudel, Matthew K. McElwee, Theodore McConell, Luke Mather, C. B. Duke, Devlin Cole, Buddha Basnyat

Bibliographic record

VenueWilderness and Environmental Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHigh Altitude and Hypoxia
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySaint John Regional HospitalDalhousie University
FundersScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research CollaborationUtah State University
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureEffects of high altitude on humansCohortInternal medicineAltitude (triangle)PopulationDemographyCardiologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertension is the most common cardiovascular disease among those recreating at high altitude. Previous studies with smaller, more homogenous participant pools have demonstrated increases, decreases, and no change in blood pressure (BP). We sought to characterize how BP changes with altitude on both a population-wide and individual level in normotensive (NTN) and hypertensive (HTN) trekkers in Nepal. Trekkers in the Solukhumbu Valley of Nepal, aged 18 years and older, were recruited at 2860 m. They reported demographic information, medical history, and medications. Resting BP was recorded at 2860 m, 3400 m, and 4300 m on ascent and descent. Responses were compared between NTN and HTN subjects and across altitudes. We enrolled 604 NTN and 60 self-reported HTN trekkers. At 2860 m, mean systolic BPs (SBP) in NTN and HTN trekkers were elevated relative to self-reported home measurements (n = 303, mean difference = 9 mm Hg [95% CI 5-13], P < .05). Mean SBP did not differ between altitudes on ascent or descent (P > .05) but was higher in HTN vs NTN subjects at each altitude (P < .05). However, we observed large interindividual variability. Between 2860 m and 3400 m, the majority (60%, n = 284) of NTN SBPs did not change, while 21% (n = 102) increased >10 mm Hg and 19% (n = 91) decreased >10 mm Hg. The pattern was similar in NTNs between 3400 m and 4300 m: (65% [n = 202] no change, 21% [n = 65] increased, 15% [n = 46] decreased). A greater proportion of HTN trekkers had SBP decreases between 2860 m and 3400 m (45% [n = 19] no change, 19% [n = 8] increased, 36% [n = 15] decreased) and between 3400 m and 4300 m (44% [n = 10], 26% [n = 6], 30% [n = 7]), respectively. In most individuals, with and without HTN, BP is likely to change less than 10 mm Hg at altitudes up to 4300 m. In general, travelers, including those with well-controlled HTN, may be reassured that their blood pressure will remain relatively stable at high altitude.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWilderness and Environmental MedicineSame topicHigh Altitude and HypoxiaFrench-language works237,207