Seasonal variation in blood pressure: Evidence, consensus and recommendations for clinical practice. Consensus statement by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on Blood Pressure Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
: Blood pressure (BP) exhibits seasonal variation with lower levels at higher environmental temperatures and higher at lower temperatures. This is a global phenomenon affecting both sexes, all age groups, normotensive individuals, and hypertensive patients. In treated hypertensive patients it may result in excessive BP decline in summer, or rise in winter, possibly deserving treatment modification. This Consensus Statement by the European Society of Hypertension Working Group on BP Monitoring and Cardiovascular Variability provides a review of the evidence on the seasonal BP variation regarding its epidemiology, pathophysiology, relevance, magnitude, and the findings using different measurement methods. Consensus recommendations are provided for health professionals on how to evaluate the seasonal BP changes in treated hypertensive patients and when treatment modification might be justified. (i) In treated hypertensive patients symptoms appearing with temperature rise and suggesting overtreatment must be investigated for possible excessive BP drop due to seasonal variation. On the other hand, a BP rise during cold weather, might be due to seasonal variation. (ii) The seasonal BP changes should be confirmed by repeated office measurements; preferably with home or ambulatory BP monitoring. Other reasons for BP change must be excluded. (iii) Similar issues might appear in people traveling from cold to hot places, or the reverse. (iv) BP levels below the recommended treatment goal should be considered for possible down-titration, particularly if there are symptoms suggesting overtreatment. SBP less than 110 mmHg requires consideration for treatment down-titration, even in asymptomatic patients. Further research is needed on the optimal management of the seasonal BP changes.
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 | 0.039 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".