Nighttime dipping status and risk of cardiovascular events in patients with untreated hypertension: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to determine whether nocturnal blood pressure fall, expressed by dipping patterns according to ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM), is a risk factor for cardiovascular events (CVEs) in untreated hypertensives. Α thorough systematic literature search at MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and gray literature was conducted through March 2020. Two reviewers screened studies and assessed dipping patterns of untreated hypertensives using ABPM with a follow-up >6 months. Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used for risk of bias assessment. We initially identified 463 reports; of which, seven cohort studies were eligible for meta-analysis enrolling 10 438 untreated hypertensives. Untreated patients classified as dippers at baseline (n = 7081) had significant lower risk of CVEs and total mortality compared to non-dippers (n = 3,357) [RR = 0.67, 95% CI (0.49, 0.92); RR = 0.71, 95% CI (0.59, 0.86)]. However, when patients were further classified into four dipping groups, only reverse dippers, yet not extreme dippers or non-dippers, were at increased risk for CVEs compared to dippers [RR = 0.47, 95% CI (0.33, 0.66)]. Likewise, only reverse dippers had a higher stroke risk than dippers [RR = 0.39, 95% CI (0.22, 0.72)]. When compared with the whole group of dippers (including extreme dippers), non-dipping alone (excluding reverse dipping) was not a significant risk factor for CVEs [RR = 0.84, 95% CI (0.61, 1.16)] or total mortality [RR = 0.84, 95% CI (0.61, 1.16); RR = 0.78, 95% CI (0.53, 1.13), respectively]. Untreated hypertensives may benefit more from the evaluation of reverse dipping rather than the non-dipping phenomenon in general.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.033 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it