Isolated Diastolic Hypertension in the IDACO Study: An Age-Stratified Analysis Using 24-Hour Ambulatory Blood Pressure Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prognostic implications of isolated diastolic hypertension (IDH), as defined by 2017 American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines, have not been tested using ambulatory blood pressure (BP) monitor thresholds (ie, 24-hour mean systolic BP <125 mm Hg and diastolic BP ≥75 mm Hg). We analyzed data from 11 135 participants in the IDACO (International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes). Using 24-hour mean ambulatory BP monitor values, we performed Cox regression testing independent associations of IDH with death or cardiovascular events. Analyses were conducted in the cohort overall, as well as after age stratification (<50 years versus ≥50 years). The median age at baseline was 54.7 years and 49% were female. Over a median follow-up of 13.8 years, 2836 participants died, and 2049 experienced a cardiovascular event. Overall, irrespective of age, IDH on 24-hour ambulatory BP monitor defined by 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association criteria was not significantly associated with death (hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.79–1.13]) or cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.94–1.40]), compared with normotension. However, among the subgroup <50 years old, IDH was associated with excess risk for cardiovascular events (2.87 [95% CI, 1.72–4.80]), with evidence for effect modification based on age ( P interaction <0.001). In conclusion, using ambulatory BP monitor data, this study suggests that IDH defined by 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association criteria is not a risk factor for cardiovascular disease in adults aged 50 years or older but is a risk factor among younger adults. Thus, age is an important consideration in the clinical management of adults with IDH.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".