Association of depressive symptoms and socioeconomic status in determination of blood pressure levels and hypertension: The CONSTANCES population based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inconsistent association between depression and hypertension has been highlighted. The association of depression with blood pressure (BP) might depend upon socioeconomic status (SES), but evidence remains weak. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine how the associations between depressive symptoms and BP levels and hypertension and then, according to SES variables (education, income, occupational status). METHODS: Among 66,478 volunteers of the French CONSTANCES cohort (31,093 men; mean age (standard deviation): 47.8 (12.9) years), depressive symptoms were assessed with the Center of Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CES-D). Overall associations between depressive symptoms and BP and hypertension were estimated using regressions and by stratifying on SES. RESULTS: SES were associated with BP in both genders. CES-D score was negatively associated with systolic BP (SBP) in women (b=-0.62 95%CI [-1.03; -0.21] and in men (b=-1.03 95%CI [-1.45; -0.61]) but not with diastolic BP (DBP) in both genders. In women, the decrease in SBP and DBP was more pronounced as educational level increases (p for interaction: 0.012 and 0.013, respectively). In men, few interactions were observed between CES-D score and SES factors for BP levels. The association between CES-D score and hypertension was significant for men, OR=0.86, 95%CI [0.80; 0.93] but not for women, OR=1.03, 95%CI [0.96; 1.10]. No interactions were observed between CES-D score and SES for hypertension. CONCLUSION: Gender differences were observed for considering depressive symptoms according to SES factors for BP variation and hypertension. In women, educational level was the SES factor which has the main modifying effect on this association.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".