MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922350922 · doi:10.1161/circ.139.suppl_1.p269

Abstract P269: Combined Associations of Objective Sleep Efficiency and Overweight With the Prevalence of Hypertension in Japanese Adults

2019· article· en· W2922350922 on OpenAlexaff
Takumi Hirata, Tomohiro Nakamura, Mana Kogure, Akira Narita, Ken Miyagawa, Kotaro Nochioka, Naho Tsuchiya, Taku Obara, Naoki Nakaya, Shinichi Kuriyama, Atsushi Hozawa

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsElectrovaya (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverweightOdds ratioBlood pressureLogistic regressionObesitySleep (system call)Confidence intervalDemographyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Poor sleep efficiency is a risk for prevalent hypertension, and also overweight is one of the major risk factors for hypertension. Generally, overweight participants have poor sleep efficiency, and thus, overweight may modify the association between poor sleep efficiency and hypertension. However, there are no previous reports to examine the impact of overweight on the association between poor sleep efficiency and hypertension. Hypothesis: Poor sleep efficiency is associated with increased with prevalent hypertension, particularly in individuals with non-overweight. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 779 participants aged 20 years or older who lived in Miyagi prefecture, Japan. All the participants were recruited from June 2017 to March 2018. Sleep efficiency was measured by HSL-101 sleep sensor, and then we classified all the participants into four groups according to their sleep efficiency (good; ≥90%/poor; <90%) and the presence or absence of overweight which was defined as BMI of 23 kg/m 2 or higher based on the Western Pacific Region of WHO criteria for Japanese. Hypertension was defined as morning home blood pressure ≥135/85 mmHg or receiving treatment for hypertension. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to obtain odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to assess the combined associations of poor sleep efficiency and overweight with prevalent hypertension. Models were adjusted for sex, age, alcohol drinking status, smoking status, average daily steps, urinary sodium/potassium ratio, and sleep duration. Results: Of the 779 participants (68.3% women, mean age 61.0 years), 252 (32.3%) had poor sleep efficiency, 331 (42.5%) had overweight, and 303 (38.9%) had hypertension. The prevalence of poor sleep efficiency was higher in men (41.7% in men vs. 28.0% in women), and the individuals with poor sleep efficiency had a higher proportion of overweight (52.8 % in participants with poor sleep efficiency vs. 37.6 % in those with good sleep efficiency) and shorter sleep duration. In a multivariable analysis, compared with individuals with good sleep efficiency and non-overweight for hypertension, the adjusted ORs (95% CIs) of those with poor sleep efficiency and non-overweight, good sleep efficiency and overweight, and poor sleep efficiency and overweight for hypertension were 1.79 (1.08 to 2.98), 2.99 (1.99 to 4.49), and 4.15 (2.56 to 6.71), respectively. Conclusions: Poor sleep efficiency was associated with increased prevalence of hypertension even in individuals with non-overweight, and additionally the risk of poor sleep efficiency for prevalent hypertension in individuals with overweight was relatively higher than that in individuals with non-overweight.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Health and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207