MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3159563871 · doi:10.15173/sciential.vi6.2720

Sex Differences in the Association Between Obesity and Hypertension: A Systematic Review

2021· review· en· W3159563871 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ava Oliaei

Bibliographic record

VenueSciential - McMaster Undergraduate Science Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineObesityMeta-analysisSystematic reviewMEDLINELife expectancyAssociation (psychology)DemographyGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPopulationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Obesity is associated with multiple health-related complications, which together can decrease quality of life, disability-adjusted life years and life expectancy.1 Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have demonstrated that sex can influence the association between obesity and health complications, such as rheumatoid arthritis and many types of cancer.2-4 However, no systematic review or meta-analysis has been conducted to review the effect of sex on the association between obesity and hypertension, thus far. Knowing whether or not sex influences this relationship can help tailor the prevention, prediction, and care of this condition towards each sex. Objectives: To evaluate current studies on the association between sex, obesity, and hypertension, so as to obtain an overall estimate of the effect of sex on the prevalence of hypertension in obese individuals. Methods: A systematic search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed was conducted. Search terms, such as “obesity,” “sex differences,” and “hypertension,” were used to filter results. After reviewing 406 articles, eight articles were included. Results: Four articles showed that obese women were at a greater risk of developing hypertension than obese men.5-8 Conversely, the results of two studies found that obese men are at a greater risk of developing hypertension.9,10 The remaining two studies showed that the difference between the sexes was insignificant.11,12 Discussion/Limitations: Stronger evidence shows that obese women are at a greater risk of developing hypertension than obese men. The two studies that had contradictory conclusions had small sample sizes relative to the other studies. Additionally, the two studies that concluded that both sexes are at a similar risk highlighted that most other studies have determined that obese women are at a greater risk and that their limitations may have caused this discrepancy. Limitations of this review include the limited ethnicity of participants and the use of BMI to classify obesity, which can sometimes lead to misclassification due to varying muscle to fat ratios. These factors limit the generalizability of the results. Conclusion: Obese women are seemingly at a greater risk of developing hypertension than obese men. However, this conclusion remains statistically inconclusive. Therefore, it would be beneficial to complete a meta-analysis in order to conclusively determine which sex is statistically more at risk of developing hypertension, when obese.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.308
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSciential - McMaster Undergraduate Science JournalSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207