Hemodynamic Response to Upper Airway Obstruction in Hypertensive and Normotensive Pregnant Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background.Mild obstructive sleep apnea is common in pregnancy and may have an exacerbating role in gestational hypertension, although currently the interaction between these two diseases is uncertain.Methods.We analyzed 43 pregnant subjects, 28 with gestational hypertension (GH) and 15 with normal healthy pregnancy, by level I polysomnography. Additionally, diastolic and systolic blood pressure changes in response to obstructive respiratory events were measured by noninvasive beat-by-beat monitoring. We also assessed a subgroup ( n=27 ) of women with respiratory disturbance indexes <5, for blood pressure responses to very subtle obstructive respiratory disturbances (“airflow reductions”).Results.The mean ± standard deviation respiratory disturbance index of our 28 GH women and 15 healthy pregnant women was 10.1±9.9 mmHg and 3.0±3.8 mmHg, respectively. Systolic and diastolic pressure responses to these events were 30.1±12.8 mmHg and 16.0±6.1 mmHg for GH women and 29.1±14.2 mmHg and 14.3±7.7 mmHg for healthy women. For the 27 women in whom we assessed for airflow reduction events, the hemodynamic responses were 27.1±12.3 mmHg systolic and 14.4±6.7 mmHg diastolic.Interpretation.Upper airway obstructive events of any severity are associated with a substantial transient blood pressure response in both healthy pregnant and GH women. Whether or not these events have a clinically significant impact on women with GH remains uncertain.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".