Abstract P226: Changes of Blood Pressure and Urinary Sodium Over 18 Years in Rural China: Results From the INTERMAP China Prospective Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Tremendous dietary pattern changes could be a driver of the increasing burden of high blood pressure (BP) in developing countries. However, data on nutrition transitions and associated BP changes are scarce. Objective: To explore BP changes and sodium (Na) consumption over 18 years in China. Methods: International Collaborative Study of Macro-/Micro-nutrients and Blood Pressure (INTERMAP) enrolled 839 men and women aged 40-59 years from three geographically diverse regions (Beijing, Shanxi in the north and Guangxi in the south) in 1997. INTERMAP China Prospective (ICP) Study followed up these three populations in 2015-2016. Seated BP were measured at least twice following at least 5 minutes of rest, using a random zero sphygmomanometer for the INTERMAP (baseline) and an oscillometric device (Omron HEM-907) for the ICP (follow-up). When calculating BP changes, baseline values were converted using equations developed in a calibration study. Timed 24-hr urine samples were collected at baseline and follow-up using the same protocol. Urinary Na and creatinine (Cr) were measured by emission flame photometry method at baseline and ion-selective electrode method at follow-up. BP and dietary Na changes over time were compared using student t test. Results: Systolic BP increased considerably in all three sites; largest increment in Guangxi (18.6, 95% CI: 16.0-21.1 mm Hg, P<0.001) and smallest in Beijing (9.1, 6.3-11.8 mm Hg, P<0.001) (Table 1). Level of urinary Na was almost double in north (Beijing and Shanxi) than south (Guangxi) at follow-up (P<0.001), similar as baseline. On average, participants consumed 10.8 (4.7) and 11.8 (4.7) grams of salt at Beijing and Shanxi and 6.3 (3.0) grams of salt at Guangxi at follow-up, though a trend of reduction in Na/Cr (-3.7, 95% CI: -4.7- -2.6, P<0.001) overall was documented. Conclusions: Systolic BP levels increased considerably in this cohort between 1997 and 2015 in rural China. Na consumption might have a declining trend, but still at a very high level at northern China.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".