Association of systolic blood pressure with cardiovascular outcomes in elderly patients with hypertension in Northern China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the association of systolic blood pressure (SBP) with cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality among elderly hypertensive patients in northern China. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, 9655 elderly hypertensive patients from Kailuan study were followed up with the incidence of primary outcomes (composite outcomes including myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause death) and the incidence of secondary outcomes (stroke, myocardial infarction, and all-cause death). Patients were categorized into five groups on the basis of SBP levels: Q1 (SBP<130 mmHg), Q2 (130≤SBP<140 mmHg), Q3 (140≤SBP<150 mmHg), Q4 (150≤SBP<160 mmHg), and Q5 (SBP≥160 mmHg). RESULTS: During an average of 7.2±1.6 years of follow-up, patients in the group Q2 had the lowest incidence rates of composite outcomes. Q1 was not associated with a decreased risk of composite outcomes. Interestingly, compared with reference group Q2, the risk of composite outcomes [hazard ratio (HR): 1.36; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.06-1.75] was significantly increased in the Q3 subgroup with high risk+very high risk for the incidence of ischemic cardiovascular disease (ICVD). Similarly, the risk of composite outcomes (HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.01-1.53 and HR: 1.35; 95% CI: 1.04-1.75) was significantly increased in Q4 subgroups, with both intermediate risk and high risk+very high risk for 10-year ICVD. CONCLUSION: Elderly hypertensive patients with a high risk of 10-year ICVD were still at a higher risk of developing adverse outcomes even with 140≤SBP<150 mmHg. SBP of less than 130 mmHg was not associated significantly with a reduced risk of developing adverse outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".