4-5THE RISK OF HYPERTENSION IN ADULTS EXPOSED TO SECONDHAND SMOKE: A META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Overwhelming evidence supports the conclusion that cigarette smoking is associated with various adverse cardiovascular events, including hypertension. In addition, exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) can be just as dangerous because of the lack of filters. However, the effect of secondhand smoke exposure in increasing the risk of hypertension is still unclear. Objective: To investigate the risk of hypertension from secondhand smoke exposure among adults who never smoked. Method: Systematic search was conducted using MEDLINE and Science Direct for studies up to January 2020, which reported the risk of hypertension in adults exposed to secondhand smoke compared to those who did not. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results: A total of 8 studies were included in the main analysis. The total number of subjects across all studies was 5,059,347 subjects. The pooled unadjusted results showed that exposure to SHS was not associated with the risk of hypertension (pooled OR = 1.21; 95% CI: 0.91 – 0.61). However, the pooled adjusted OR did show an increased risk of hypertension among subjects exposed to SHS (pooled aOR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.12–1.40). Subgroup analysis showed a more definite risk in the female population (pooled aOR = 1.28; 95% CI 1.13–1.45). Conclusion: When adjustment for potential confounders was made, exposure to SHS was associated with a higher risk of developing hypertension. Therefore, exposure to SHS has a significant public health implication for the prevention of hypertension.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.083 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".