LONGITUDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEPRESSION AND INCIDENT HYPERTENSION-AN UPDATED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Background: The association between depression and cardiovascular disease (CVD) is well documented. However, depression has also been proposed to be involved in the pathological pathways linking the main risk factors of CVDs. Several studies including one meta-analysis have suggested that depression may be an independent risk factor for hypertension. Objective:To evaluate the relationship between depression and incident hypertension Design and method: Bibliographic databases Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science and PsycINFO without language restrictions were searched from 2005 up to 2019. We included prospective cohort studies, involving normotensive subjects at baseline with diagnosis of depression measured using clinical evaluation or a standardised psychometric tool and recorded as a dichotomous variable. Outcome was new-onset hypertension. We excluded studies that enrolled participants with a history of antihypertensive medication at the time of study initiation. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled hazard ratios (HR) were calculated using inverse variance method in random effects models. Results: We identified five studies with a total of 201,886 participants and an average follow-up of 7.52 years. Out of the five studies, only two reported a positive association between depression and incident hypertension. The pooled effect of three studies included in the meta-analysis showed that depression was associated with 20% increased risk of hypertension (HR = 1.20, 95%CI 1.01–1.43) but with a substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 70%). One study reported a null result for a dose-response relationship between depressive symptoms and incident hypertension. Quality analysis showed increased risk of bias notably in the ascertainment of the outcome as most studies relied on self-report and/or prescription of antihypertensive medication as a proxy for hypertension. Conclusions: Our findings indicate a possible increased risk of hypertension with depressive symptoms, but this result is limited by heterogeneity and ascertainment bias in the studies included.
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 | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".