Uric acid association with pulsatile and steady components of central and peripheral blood pressures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Whether the cardiovascular risk attributed to elevated uric acid levels may be explained by changes in central and peripheral pulsatile and/or steady blood pressure (BP) components remains controversial. METHODS: In a cross-sectional analysis of normotensive and untreated hypertensive participants of the CARTaGENE populational cohort, we examined the relationship between uric acid, and both pulsatile and steady components of peripheral and central BP, using sex-stratified linear regressions. RESULTS: Of the 20 004 participants, 10 161 individuals without antihypertensive or uric acid-lowering drugs had valid pulse wave analysis and serum uric acid levels. In multivariate analysis, pulsatile components of BP were not associated with uric acid levels, whereas steady components [mean BP (MBP), peripheral and central DBP] were all associated with higher levels of uric acid levels in women and men (all P < 0.001). Furthermore, there was a gradual increase of central SBP (cSBP), DBP and MBP from the lowest to the highest quintiles of uric acid levels but not for MBP-adjusted cSBP. Peripheral and cSBP, which are aggregate measures of pulsatile and steady BP, were also associated with uric acid levels in women (β = 0.063 and 0.072, respectively, both P < 0.001) and men (β = 0.043 and 0.051, both P ≤ 0.003). After further adjustments for MBP to account for the concomitant increase in steady component of BP, SBPs were no longer associated with uric acid levels. CONCLUSION: Serum uric acid levels appear to be associated with both central and peripheral steady but not pulsatile BP, regardless of sex.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".