The Benefits of Intensive Versus Standard Blood Pressure Treatment According to Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution Exposure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fine particulate matter <2.5 µm (PM 2.5 ) air pollution is implicated in global mortality, especially from cardiovascular causes. A large body of evidence suggests a link between PM 2.5 and elevation in blood pressure (BP), with the latter implicated as a potential mediator of cardiovascular events. We sought to determine if the outcomes of intensive BP lowering (systolic BP <120 mm Hg) on cardiovascular events are modified by PM 2.5 exposure in the SPRINT (Systolic BP Intervention Trial). We linked annual PM 2.5 exposure estimates derived from an integrated model to subjects participating in SPRINT. We evaluated the effect of intensive BP lowering by PM 2.5 exposure on the primary outcome in SPRINT using cox-proportional hazard models. A total of 9286 participants were linked to PM 2.5 levels (mean age 68±9 years). Intensive BP-lowering decreased risk of the primary outcome more among patients exposed to higher PM 2.5 ( P interaction =0.047). The estimate for lowering of primary outcome was numerically lower in the highest than in the lower quintiles. The benefits of intensive BP-lowering were larger among patients chronically exposed to PM 2.5 levels above US National Ambient Air Quality Standards of 12 µg/m 3 (hazard ratio, 0.47 [95% CI, 0.29–0.74]) compared with those living in cleaner locations (hazard ratio, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.68–0.97]), P interaction =0.037. This exploratory nonprespecified post hoc analysis of SPRINT suggests that the benefits of intensive BP lowering on the primary outcome was greater in patients exposed to higher PM 2.5 , suggesting that the magnitude of benefit may depend upon the magnitude of antecedent PM 2.5 exposure.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".