Blood pressure in adults with cerebral palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine the overall mean blood pressure and prevalence of hypertension among a representative sample of adults living with cerebral palsy by combining individual participant data. Additional objectives included estimating variations between subgroups and investigating potential risk factors for hypertension. METHODS: Potential datasets were identified by literature searches for studies published between January 2000 and November 2017 and by experts in the field. Samples of adults with cerebral palsy (n ≥ 10, age ≥ 18 years) were included if blood pressure data, cerebral palsy-related factors (e.g. cerebral palsy subtype), and sociodemographic variables (e.g. age, sex) were available. Hypertension was defined as at least 140/90 mmHg and/or use of antihypertensive medication. RESULTS: We included data from 11 international cohorts representing 444 adults with cerebral palsy [median (IQR) age of the sample was 29.0 (23.0-38.0); 51% men; 89% spastic type; Gross Motor Function Classification System levels I-V]. Overall mean SBP was 124.9 mmHg [95% confidence interval (CI) 121.7-128.1] and overall mean DBP was 79.9 mmHg (95% CI 77.2-82.5). Overall prevalence of hypertension was 28.7% (95% CI 18.8-39.8%). Subgroup analysis indicated higher blood pressure levels or higher prevalence of hypertension in adults with cerebral palsy above 40 years of age, men, those with spastic cerebral palsy or those who lived in Africa. BMI, resting heart rate and alcohol consumption were risk factors that were associated with blood pressure or hypertension. CONCLUSION: Our findings underscore the importance of clinical screening for blood pressure in individuals with cerebral palsy beginning in young adulthood.
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 | 0.019 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".