Blood Pressure and Altitude: An Observational Cohort Study of Hypertensive and Nonhypertensive Himalayan Trekkers in Nepal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keyes, Linda E., Thomas Douglas Sallade, Charles Duke, Jennifer Starling, Alison Sheets, Sushil Pant, David S. Young, David Twillman, Nirajan Regmi, Benoit Phelan, Purshotam Paudel, Matthew McElwee, Luke Mather, Devlin Cole, Theodore McConnell, and Buddha Basnyat. Blood pressure and altitude: an observational cohort study of hypertensive and nonhypertensive Himalayan trekkers in Nepal. High Alt Med Biol. 18:267-277, 2017. OBJECTIVES: To determine how blood pressure (BP) changes with altitude in normotensive versus hypertensive trekkers. Secondary aims were to evaluate the prevalence of severe hypertension (BP ≥180/100 mmHg) and efficacy of different antihypertensive agents at high altitude. METHODS: This was an observational cohort study of resting and 24-hour ambulatory BP in normotensive and hypertensive trekkers at 2860, 3400, and 4300 m in Nepal. RESULTS: We enrolled 672 trekkers age 18 years and older, 60 with a prior diagnosis of hypertension. Mean systolic and diastolic BP did not change between altitudes in normotensive or hypertensive trekkers, but was higher in those with hypertension. However, there was large interindividual variability. At 3400 m, the majority (60%, n = 284) of normotensive participants had a BP within 10 mmHg of their BP at 2860 m, while 21% (n = 102) increased and 19% (n = 91) decreased. The pattern was similar between 3400 and 4300 m (64% [n = 202] no change, 21% [n = 65] increased, 15% [n = 46] decreased). BP decreased in a greater proportion of hypertensive trekkers versus normotensives (36% [n = 15] vs. 21% at 3400 m, p = 0.01 and 30% [n = 7] vs. 15% at 4300 m, p = 0.05). Severe hypertension occurred in both groups, but was asymptomatic. In a small subset of participants, 24-hour ambulatory BP monitoring showed that nocturnal BP decreased in normotensive (n = 4) and increased in hypertensive trekkers (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: Most travelers, including those with well-controlled hypertension, can be reassured that their BP will remain relatively stable at high altitude. Although extremely elevated BP may be observed at high altitude in normotensive and hypertensive people, it is unlikely to be symptomatic. The ideal antihypertensive regimen at high altitude remains unclear.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".