Correlates of elevated blood pressure in healthy children: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of hypertension in children is increasing globally. Addressing this will require a robust understanding of associated risk factors. To this end, we conducted a systematic review to identify correlates of elevated blood pressure (BP) in children. Literature searches were conducted using pre-defined search terms from three academic databases. The abstract and full text of identified studies were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. A total of 100 studies were included in this systematic review. An assessment tool was first used to assess study quality; a narrative synthesis was then performed. We found a broad range of physiological, social and behavioural factors associated with elevated BP in children. The most common correlate observed was adiposity, suggesting that childhood obesity may be implicated in the increased prevalence of hypertension observed in children. However, the broad range of other factors identified underscores the multi-factorial aetiology of hypertension. Data from a broad range of studies showed that the correlates of hypertension in children are multi-factorial. Therefore, approaches aimed at preventing hypertension must in turn be multi-factorial to ensure that the burden of hypertension in childhood is addressed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".