MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232657342 · doi:10.1177/117954681000400001

A Proposed Study on how Far Anger Contributes to Initiating Essential Hypertension in Canadian Caucasian Adults with a Family History of Hypertension

2010· article· en· W4232657342 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marlene Shehata

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine Insights Cardiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicStress Responses and Cortisol
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngerBlood pressureFamily historyMedicineCohortTraitCohort studyPopulationClinical psychologyEssential hypertensionYoung adultPsychiatryPsychologyDemographyGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of the present correlational study is to test the hypothesis that anger initiates essential hypertension in Canadian Caucasian adults with a family history of hypertension. The study population will include a cohort of 100 men and women aged 25 to 45 years at enrollment recruited from the University of Ottawa General and Civic Hospitals. Participants who are normotensives will be included in the study given that they have a family history of hypertension. The Spielberger State Trait Anger Expression inventory (STAXI) scales will assess the three main dimensions of anger: State, Trait and Anger Expression. Using a semiautomated blood pressure machine, blood pressure measurements will be conducted by the attending nurse. It is hypothesized that during the three year study, participants with higher STAXI scores will more likely develop hypertension. Results obtained from the present study are expected to highlight the significant contribution of anger as a modifiable behavioral risk factor in the pathogenesis of hypertension.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine Insights CardiologySame topicStress Responses and CortisolFrench-language works237,207