MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

LONGITUDINAL ASSOCIATION BETWEEN DEPRESSION AND INCIDENT HYPERTENSION-AN UPDATED SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS

2021· article· en· W3153839030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anwar Alnakhli Anwar, Mohammed A. Bazuhair, Sandosh Padmanabhan, Daniel J. Smıth

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisDepression (economics)Hazard ratioInternal medicineCohort studyPsycINFOProspective cohort studyMEDLINEConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.095
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207