Abstract P206: Interarm Difference in Blood Pressure: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and Relevance for Diagnosis of Disease of the Aorta Among Patients Referred to Specialized Regional Hypertension Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Initial evaluation of hypertension (HTN) should include assessment of blood pressure (BP) in both arms. The prevalence of high interarm differ ranges from 3% in the general adult population to about 10% in the patients with HTN. However, we lack proper estimates of its prevalence, and existing practice of follow up for these patients in a referred population. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of all prevalent patients followed at the Hypertension Center at the Ottawa Hospital. BP data from the first visit were used for assessment for interarm BP difference. We considered interarm difference in either systolic or diastolic BP in excess of 10 mmHg for casual BP by mercury sphygmomanometry to be clinically significant. Results: 493 patients of 580 patients were included in this study based on available data. The prevalence of clinically significant interarm difference in systolic or diastolic BP was 16.2% and was similar among men and women. These patients were more likely to be smokers (current or previous; 53.5% vs 36.8%) with peripheral arterial disease (PAD, 15% vs 8%). None of these patients had undergone further investigations of ascending aorta/aortic arch. Conclusions: A significant proportion of referred patients have a high interarm difference in systolic or diastolic BP. No clinical investigations were ordered to evaluate for ascending aorta/aortic arch disease reflecting the physicians’ lack of understanding of its clinical relevance. The association with smoking and PAD suggests underlying aortic/large vessel disease as a potential mechanism in some patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".