MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

MASKED HYPERTENSION INCIDENCE

2018· article· en· W2805743593 on OpenAlexaffabout
T. Xavier, Chantal Brisson, Mahée Gilbert‐Ouimet, Caroline Duchaine, Violaine Dalens, Denis Talbot, Alain Milot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Prospective cohort studyCohortBody mass indexCohort studyRelative riskBlood pressurePopulationMasked HypertensionAmbulatoryInternal medicineAmbulatory blood pressureDemographyPediatricsConfidence intervalEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Masked hypertension affects approximately 10 to 20% of the general population and is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular diseases. No previous prospective study has examined risk factors associated with masked hypertension incidence. The aim of this study was to examine risk factors associated with masked hypertension incidence in a prospective cohort from Quebec City, Canada. Design and method: This is a dynamic cohort study using two pooled longitudinal samples of initially normotensive participants (Year 0 – Year 3; Year 3 – Year 5). The study sample was composed of 1,836 participants. At each time, blood pressure (BP) was measured using Spacelabs 90207. Manual BP was defined as the mean of the first three readings taken at rest. Ambulatory BP was defined as the mean of the next readings recorded every 15 minutes during daytime working hours. Risk factors of masked hypertension incidence were examined using cross-lagged generalized estimating equations. Results: After mutual adjustment, masked hypertension incidence was associated with male gender (RR = 1.53, 95% CI: 1.19–1.96), age (RR40–49 = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.14–2.10; RR > = 50 = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.05–2.09), body mass index (RR> = 27 = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.12–1.87), smoking status (RR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.07–2.08) and alcohol intake (RR> = 6/week = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.06–2.00). Conclusions: Findings point toward sociodemographic and lifestyle related risk factors associated with masked hypertension incidence. These factors should be considered in screening efforts of individuals at risk for developing masked hypertension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207