Parental smoking and blood pressure in children and adolescents: a national cross-sectional study in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current evidence on the health effects of passive smoking on childhood blood pressure is limited and inconsistent. We investigated the associations between exposure to parental smoking and blood pressure in children and adolescents. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis was performed in a national sample of 42,745 children and adolescents (50.2% boys) aged 7-18 years from seven provinces in China. Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP) were measured. Information on parental smoking was collected through questionnaire. Multivariable linear regression and logistic regression was used to investigate the associations of parental smoking with blood pressure and prevalent hypertension, respectively. RESULTS: The reported parental smoking rates were 49.7 and 50.2% in boys and girls, respectively. After adjustment for a range of potential confounders, exposure to parental smoking was associated with 0.44 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.16, 0.72] mmHg and 0.26 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.47) mmHg higher SBP and DBP in girls. Girls exposed to parental smoking were also more likely to have hypertension compared with those without exposure (odds ratio = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.20). No significant associations were found in boys. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to parental smoking was associated with increased blood pressure and higher prevalence of hypertension in girls, but not in boys. Urgent strategies are needed for the promotion of smoking-free environment, especially for children and adolescents.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".