AORTIC STIFFNESS AND LEFT VENTRICULAR MASS ASSESSED BY CARDIOVASCULAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IN ADOLESCENTS WITH WHITE COAT HYPERTENSION, SPURIOUS HYPERTENSION AND TRUE HYPERTENSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) is the gold standard for the noninvasive assessment of left ventricular mass (LVM) and it permits the evaluation of aortic stiffness (AS). Our aim was to assess LVM and AS in adolescents with suspected arterial hypertension (AH), who were divided into the following groups: white coat hypertension (WCHT), spurious hypertension (sHT) and true hypertension (tHT). Design and method: LVM, pulse wave velocity in the proximal (proxPWV) and whole thoracic aorta (thPWV) were assessed by CMR imaging in 72 patients with suspected AH (15 girls, mean age 16.4 ± 1.5years). Based on the results of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring AH or WCHT was diagnosed. AH group was further subdivided into sHT, defined as isolated systolic hypertension with normal central blood pressure (cBP), and tHT defined as elevated cBP. Results: WCHT was diagnosed in 42 and AH in 30 patients (12 sHT; 18 tHT). Comparison of WCHT with AH revealed significantly higher LVM index (LVMI, 63.8 ± 11.3 vs 72.6 ± 8.8 g/m2), LVMI z-score (0.4 ± 0.8 vs 1.0 ± 0.7), proxPWV (3.9 ± 0.8 vs 4.5 ± 1.4m/s), proxPWV z-score (0.3 ± 1.1 vs 1.0 ± 1.6) and thPWV (3.7 ± 0.7 vs 4.2 ± 0.8m/s) in AH group (p < 0.05 for all comparisons). LVMI/LVMI z-scores were significantly higher in both sHT (72.8 ± 10.8 g/m2 / 0.96 ± 0.79) and tHT (72.5 ± 7.5 g/m2 / 0.99 ± 0.64) as compared to WCHT (63.6 ± 11.3 g/m2 / 0.34 ± 0.82). Patients with sHT also had significantly higher thPWV (4.4 ± 0.8m/s) compared to WCHT (3.7 ± 0.7m/s) and tHT (4.0 ± 0.8m/s). Conclusions: Both tHT and sHT are associated with greater LVM and AS than WCHT. This supports the argument that sHT is not a benign phenomenon.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".