Abstract P232: Hemodynamic Phenotype and Target Organ Damage in Adolescents With Spurious Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Spurious hypertension (sHTN) is characterized by elevated systolic blood pressure (BP) in peripheral arteries measured by office BP and ambulatory BP monitoring (ABPM), but normal central BP. The prevalence of sHTN and its clinical significance remains unknown. The aim of the study was to assess hemodynamics and target organ damage (TOD) in adolescents with sHTN in comparison with other forms of hypertension (HTN). Patients and Methods: We analyzed 265 children (54 girls; 15.1 ±2.5 years) referred with arterial HTN, in whom secondary HTN was excluded. We assessed BP levels - office BP, ABPM, central systolic BP (cSBP), hemodynamics - cardiac output (CO), stroke volume (SV) and target organ damage (TOD) - left ventricular mass index (LVMi), carotid intima-media thickness (cIMT), pulse wave velocity (PWV). Anova with TukeyHSD post hoc test was used for analysis. Results: 115 subjects had white coat hypertension (WCH; office BP>95 th perc+ABPM<95 th perc), 25 had ambulatory prehypertension (preHTN; office BP<95 th perc+ABPM<95 th perc+ABPM load >25%), 43 had sHTN (office BP+ABPM >95th perc+cSBP<95 th perc), 82 had true hypertension (tHTN; office BP+ABPM+cSBP >95th perc. There were no significant differences between groups in age, weight and BMI. Only pts with tHTN presented features typical of hyperkinetic circulation and pts with preHTN presented intermediate hemodynamic phenotype between WCH and sHTN and those with tHTN (p<0.001). Median LVMi ratio to upper limit of normal (g/m 2.7 /95 th percentile by Khoury et. 2009) was similar in both WCH and sHTN (0.82 and 0.80, respectively), and significantly lower than in tHTN (0.89, p=0.04). The proportion of patients with LVH (LVMi>=95 th perc) was 12% in WCH, 4% in preHTN, 9% in sHTN, 22% in tHTN (p=0.05). cIMT Z-scores were also significantly lower in both WCH (0.92) and sHTN (0.90) groups compared to tHTN (1.22, p=0.01). Similar results were obtained for PWV Z-scores (WCH=1.8, sHTN=1.29, tHTN=2.28, p=0.01). Patients with preHT were not significantly different from tHTN patients in all parameters. Conclusions: Adolescents with sHTN have similar hemodynamic phenotype and TOD as patients with WCH. However, because of lack of data on the evolution of sHTN, close monitoring and follow-up is warranted.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".