MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Adaptive Value and Clinical Significance of Allostatic Blood Pressure Variation

2019· review· en· W2918775463 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gary D. James

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Hypertension Reviews · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsAllostasisBlood pressureAmbulatory blood pressureMedicineVariation (astronomy)Circadian rhythmNormativeAllostatic loadAdaptive valueMasked HypertensionIntensive care medicineInternal medicinePhysiologyEvolutionary biologyBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, there has been interest in evaluating the morbidity and mortality risk of circadian, diurnal, or nocturnal blood pressure variation. Variation is a normative property of blood pressure, necessary for survival. Like many physiological functions, blood pressure undergoes allostasis, meaning that the body does not defend a particular blood pressure value, but rather blood pressure maintains bodily stability through continual change that is initiated by constantly fluctuating internal and external environmental stimuli. Because of its allostatic and adaptive properties, the blood pressure response to unusual situations like a visit to the clinic can lead to misdiagnosis of hypertension. However, blood pressure variation is mostly ignored when evaluating hypertension, which is an arbitrary dichotomy. Whether variation is indicative of pathology should be determined by assessing its appropriateness for the circumstance, which requires quantification of the sources and extent of normative blood pressure responses to everyday living. These responses will vary among populations due to evolutionary genetic differences. The inconsistency of reports regarding aspects of ambulatory blood pressure variation as cardiovascular risk factors likely results from the fact that the measures used do not reflect the actual nature of blood pressure allostasis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.241
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Hypertension ReviewsSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207