Abstract P361: Prevalence & Predictors of Orthostatic Hypotension at a Tertiary Care Hypertension Clinic With New Diagnostic Thresholds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Orthostatic hypotension (OH), defined as a decrease of blood pressure (BP) of 20/10 mm Hg (systolic/diastolic) on change in posture from supine to standing is seldom assessed in routine practice because of logistical constraints. A recent study reported a sit-to-stand decrease of 15/7 mm Hg as also having good diagnostic yield. We measured the prevalence & risk factors associated with OH with the new threshold of sit-to- stand of either ≥ 15 mm Hg in systolic (SBP) or ≥ 7 mm Hg in diastolic BP (DBP). Methods: We reviewed medical charts of patients being followed at Renal Hypertension Center, a referral centre for difficult to control hypertension. Sitting BP is measured after 5 minutes of resting, as an average of 5 measurements with an automated device. Standing BP is measured three times at one minute intervals and averaged. OH was determined on the basis of the difference in either average SBP or DBP. Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, medication details, laboratory values and BP measurements were extracted. Results: Data from 219 patients was extracted (see table). The overall difference in SBP (sitting - standing)was 0.94 and DBP was 2.1 mm Hg. 190 patients (87%) did not have OH, whereas 29 (13%) had OH using either SBP or DBP thresholds. The difference in SBP and DBP was 17 mm and 6 mm Hg in those with OH, versus 1.6 and 3 mm Hg amongst those without OH respectively. Higher SBP was significantly associated with OH; age, gender, diabetes, number and hypertension drug class were not. Conclusion: Amongst referred patients to a specialist hypertension clinic, the prevalence of OH using a threshold of 15/7 mm Hg was 13%. The new diagnostic threshold allows for easy assessment of OH.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".