Association between Overweight and Hypertension in Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The upward trend in adolescent hypertension is widely attributed to the adolescent overweight and obesity epidemic. Because of their high-risk status, intervention in overweight adolescents with associated comorbidities, such as hypertension, should be considered. The purpose of this study was to examine association between overweight and hypertension in adolescents. Subjects and Method: This was a meta-analysis and systematic review. The articles were obtained from PubMed, Springer Link, and Google Scholar databases, which published from 2006 to 2020. Keywords used “hypertension” AND “adolescents” AND” obesity” AND “risk factor of obesity” AND “cross-sectional” AND “adjusted odds ratio”. The inclusion criteria were full-text, using English language, and reporting Odds ratio. The study population was adolescents. The intervention was overweight with comparison non overweight. The study outcome was hypertension. The articles were reviewed by PRISMA diagram and analyzed by RevMan 5.3. Results: 8 articles from Ethiopia, Spanyol, Canada, Taiwan, Lithuania, United States, and Malaysia were met criteria. The data analysis found low heterogeneity between groups (I2= 40%; p=0.110), so it used fixed effect model. This meta-analysis study reported that overweight increases the risk of hypertension in adolescents (aOR= 3.32; 95% CI= 3.02 to 3.66; p<0.001). Conclusion: Overweight increases the risk of hypertension in adolescents. Keywords: overweight, hypertension, adolescents Correspondence: Fadhila Firmanurulita. Masters Program in Public Health, Universitas Sebelas Maret. Jl. Ir. Sutami 36A, Surakarta 57126, Central Java. Email: missdhila@gmail.com. Mobile: 085740045026.
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 | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".