MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092925740 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002688

Social connections and hypertension in women and men: a population-based cross-sectional study of the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2020· article· en· W3092925740 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zeinab Hosseini, Gerry Veenstra, Nadia Khan, Annalijn Conklin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineOdds ratioDemographyOddsMarital statusCross-sectional studyInterpersonal tiesConfidence intervalGerontologyCohortCohort studyPopulationSocial supportLogistic regressionInternal medicinePsychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Associations between social ties and hypertension are poorly understood in women and men. We investigated the association between marital status, living arrangement, social network size and social participation and hypertension by sex/gender. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of 28 238 middle-age and old-age adults (45-85 years) was conducted using the baseline Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging Comprehensive cohort data. Blood pressure (BP) was measured using the automated BpTRU device and hypertension was defined as BP more than 140/90 mmHg, or more than 130/80 mmHg in participants with diabetes, self-reported history or receiving antihypertensive therapy. RESULTS: Being nonpartnered, having limited social participation (≤2 social activities per month) or a small social network size was associated with higher odds of having hypertension in women. Odds of hypertension were higher among widowed women [odds ratio 1.33 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16, 1.51)] compared with married women. The largest difference in adjusted mean SBP in women was between widowed [3.06 mmHg (95% CI: 2.01, 4.11)], vs. married women. For men, lone-living (vs. coliving) was linked to a lower odds of hypertension [odds ratio 0.85 (95% CI: 0.75, 0.96)] When considering two social ties simultaneously, the adverse associations between nonpartnership (mainly for singles and divorced) and BP were mitigated with increased social participation, especially among women. CONCLUSION: Social ties appear to be more strongly associated with hypertension in middle and older aged women than men. Women who are nonpartnered or who engage in few social activities and men who are coliving represent at risk groups for having hypertension. Healthcare professionals may need to consider these social factors in addressing risk for hypertension and cardiovascular disease prevention.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationalhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207