Prevalence and Clinical Profile of Metabolic Syndrome in Hypertensive Subjects.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: (1) To study the prevalence and clinical attributes of metabolic syndrome in hypertensive subjects (2) To identify the factors determining the high prevalence of metabolic syndrome in hypertensive subjects. METHODS: After ethical considerations, this prospective observational study was conducted on 151 non-pregnant essential hypertensive adults. Diagnosis of metabolic syndrome was made as per the NCEP - ATP III criteria. The parameters were compared with those of hypertensive subjects without metabolic syndrome. RESULTS: Amongst the 151 subjects enrolled, the prevalence of metabolic syndrome in hypertensive subjects was found to be 49.01% with a female preponderance (M: F =1: 1.39). The Metabolic Syndrome Score was 3, 4 and 5 in 52 (70.27%), 14 (18.91%) and 8 (10.81%), respectively in subjects positive for metabolic syndrome. Forty-six (62.16%) of the subjects with metabolic syndrome were in their sixth decade of life. Fifty-four subjects (73%) belonged to the lower socioeconomic strata. Sixty-three (85%) of the subjects were leading a sedentary lifestyle. The most common co-morbidity in these subjects was diabetes mellitus (66.21%, 49 subjects) followed by raised triglyceride levels (63.51%, 47 subjects). When compared with the hypertensive group not suffering from metabolic syndrome, statistical significance was noted with respect to central obesity (p<0.001), increased waist: height ratio (p<0.001) and BMI (p<0.001). No significant association was noted with the stage (p=0.163) or duration (p=0.850) of hypertension. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of metabolic syndrome is higher amongst hypertensive patients as compared to the general population. Increased waist: height ratio and BMI are important contributors to the high prevalence of this cardiac risk factor in hypertensive subjects.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".