Comparison of the Assessment of Orthostatic Hypotension Using Peripheral and Central Blood Pressure Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Orthostatic hypotension (OH) is associated with falls and cardiovascular events. There is growing evidence that central blood pressure (CBP) is better than peripheral blood pressure (PBP) in predicting adverse outcomes. The objectives of this study were to assess 1) the prevalence of OH identified using PBP and CBP and the levels of agreement, 2) the respective associations between OH and falls and cardiovascular comorbidities, by PBP and CBP, and 3) the association of OH with arterial wall stiffness markers (augmentation pressure (AP) and augmentation index (AI)). METHODS: An observational case-control study of subjects aged 50 years and above was conducted at the University of Alberta Hospital inpatient wards and outpatient clinics. This study used a non-invasive technology called SphygmoCor to assess changes in CBP between lying, 1, 3 and 6 min of standing. AP and AI, which are markers of arterial wall stiffness, were also measured in this study. Dementia, significant psychological problems, and isolation precautions were exclusion criteria. Both PBP and CBP were measured with arm cuffs in lying and standing positions. OH was diagnosed using consensus criteria. RESULTS: Of the 71 participants recruited, mean age was 72.3 ±10.3 years, 52% were males, 32% had a history of falls and 72% had hypertension. OH occurred within 1, 3 or 6 min of standing (transient OH) in 31% by PBP and 27% by CBP (kappa = 0.56). OH persisted for all 6 min (persistent OH) in 16% by both PBP and CBP (kappa = 0.68). A significant relationship was observed between transient OH by CBP and baseline hypertension (P = 0.05) and dyslipidemia (P = 0.02). There was a significant difference in the mean AP between subjects with and without central persistent OH (P = 0.02), but not between subjects with and without peripheral persistent OH. The mean AI was not significantly different between subjects with or without central or peripheral persistent OH and between subjects with and without peripheral or central transient OH. CONCLUSION: Prevalence of OH was similar between PBP and CBP. However, there was only moderate agreement with OH identified by PBP and CBP indicating some inconsistencies across the sample in identifying OH.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".