The Hypertension of Hemophilia Is Not Explained by the Usual Cardiovascular Risk Factors: Results of a Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background . The etiology of the high prevalence of hypertension among patients with hemophilia (PWH) remains unknown. Methods . We compared 469 PWH in the United States with males from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) to determine whether differences in cardiovascular risk factors can account for the hypertension in hemophilia. Results . Median systolic and diastolic BP were higher in PWH than NHANES ( P < 0.001) for subjects not taking antihypertensives. Those taking antihypertensives showed similar differences. Differences in both systolic and diastolic BP were especially marked among adults <30 years old. Differences between PWH and NHANES persisted after adjusting for age and risk factors (body mass index, renal function, cholesterol, smoking, diabetes, Hepatitis C, and race). Conclusions . Systolic and diastolic BP are higher in PWH than in the general male population and especially among PWH < 30 years old. The usual cardiovascular risk factors do not account for the etiology of the higher prevalence of hypertension in hemophilia. New investigations into the missing link between hemophilia and hypertension should include age of onset of hypertension and hemophilia‐specific morbidities such as the role of inflammatory joint disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".