Blood pressure in relation to frailty in older adults: A population‐based study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In frail older adults, low blood pressure (BP) might be associated with worse health outcomes and hypertension management in this population is highly debated. Using data from a population-based study of older adults, we assessed the association between frailty and BP. We used data collected between 2014 and 2016 from 3157 participants aged between 67 and 80 years in the Lausanne cohort Lc65+. BP was measured three times at one visit, and frailty status was assessed based on Fried's phenotype model. We analyzed the cross-sectional association between BP and frailty by computing mean systolic and diastolic BP stratified by sex, age, and frailty and by fitting regression models. The average age of the participants was 73.3 (standard deviation [SD]: 4.1) years, and 59.1% were women. 34.1% were pre-frail, and 3.3% were frail. Mean BP was 135.1/76.3 mm Hg (SD 18.5/11.0). Age- and sex-adjusted systolic BP was on average lower by 2.8 mm Hg (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-4.2) and 6.7 mm Hg (95% CI: 3.2-10.3) among pre-frail and frail compared to non-frail participants. Similar differences in mean diastolic BP across frailty status were found. Upon adjustment for antihypertensive treatment, the associations between frailty status and BP did not change substantially. Frail individuals had a substantially lower BP compared with non-frail older adults. Because low BP could be detrimental among frail older patients, our findings raise questions about hypertension management in this population and stress the need for additional evidence.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it