Vitamin D deficiency is associated with increased risk of postural hypotension in older men: a cross-sectional analysis from The British Regional Heart Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in the role of vitamin D in extra-skeletal health, including postural hypotension. Postural hypotension is found in 1 in 5 community-dwelling adults aged 60 years and above. It increases risk of falls, fractures, cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality. Better understanding of the aetiology of postural hypotension may help yield more effective treatment options than those that are currently available. AIM: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between circulating vitamin D, parathyroid hormone and postural hypotension. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional analysis of 3620 community-dwelling men living in the UK (mean age 68.6 years; standard deviation 5.5 years). Vitamin D status (nmol/L) was categorised as sufficient (≥50), insufficient (≥25 - <50), or deficient (<25). Parathyroid hormone levels were categorised by quintiles. Postural hypotension was defined by consensus criteria as a decrease in systolic blood pressure ≥20 mmHg and/or diastolic blood pressure ≥10 mmHg that occurred within three minutes of standing. RESULTS: Compared to sufficient levels of vitamin D, vitamin D deficiency increased risk of postural hypotension that specifically occurred within one minute of standing (OR 1.51, 95% CI = 1.06 to 2.15) in multinomial, multiple logistic regression. Neither vitamin D insufficiency, nor elevated parathyroid hormone, were associated with postural hypotension. CONCLUSION: In this study, vitamin D deficiency was associated with increased risk of postural hypotension. Further research may help clarify whether treating vitamin D deficiency can reduce the degree of postural hypotension, or if preventing the progression to vitamin D deficiency can reduce the incidence of postural hypotension.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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, 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".