MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2894543667 · doi:10.1177/2047487318802692

Masked hypertension incidence and risk factors in a prospective cohort study

2018· article· en· W2894543667 on OpenAlexafffund
Xavier Trudel, Chantal Brisson, Mahée Gilbert‐Ouimet, Caroline Duchaine, Violaine Dalens, Denis Talbot, Alain Milot

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThermoregulation and physiological responses
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Work & HealthHealth CanadaUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureRelative riskIncidence (geometry)Confidence intervalAmbulatory blood pressureCohortPopulationBody mass indexCohort studyProspective cohort studyInternal medicineCumulative incidenceMasked HypertensionAmbulatoryRisk factor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims Masked hypertension may affect up to 30% of the general population and is associated with a high cardiovascular disease risk. No previous study has examined the incidence of masked hypertension and its risk factors. The study aim was to determine the incidence of masked hypertension and to examine its related risk factors. Methods This is a cohort study including 1836 initially normotensive participants followed up on average for 2.9 years. Blood pressure was measured using Spacelabs 90207. Manual blood pressure was defined as the mean of the first three readings taken at rest. Ambulatory blood pressure was defined as the mean of the next readings recorded every 15 minutes during daytime working hours. Masked hypertension incidence at follow-up was defined as manual blood pressure less than 140 and less than 90 mmHg and ambulatory blood pressure at least 135 or at least 85 mmHg. Generalised estimating equations were used. Results The cumulative incidence of masked hypertension was 10.3% and was associated with male gender (relative risk (RR) 1.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18–1.94), older age (RR40–49 years 1.56, 95% CI 1.16–2.11, RR≥50 years 1.50, 95% CI 1.06–2.10), higher education (RRcollege 1.31, 95% CI 1.03–1.65), body mass index (RR≥27 1.43, 95% CI 1.11–1.85), smoking (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.09–2.010) and alcohol intake (RR≥6/week 1.65, 95% CI 1.13–2.03). Conclusion The present study is the first to identify risk factors for the incidence of masked hypertension. Current guidelines for hypertension detection recommend ambulatory blood pressure in patients with an elevated blood pressure reading at the clinic. As it is impractical to measure ambulatory blood pressure in all normotensive patients, factors identified in the present study should be considered for the screening of at-risk individuals and for primary prevention of 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations42
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicThermoregulation and physiological responsesFrench-language works237,207