The Association of Midday Napping With Hypertension Among Chinese Adults Older Than 45 Years: Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Hypertension is one of the main public health issues around worldwide, and midday napping is a popular habit. The association between the two remains to be explored. Objective The goal of the research was to explore the association of midday napping with hypertension. Methods This study separately selected 11,439, 12,689, and 9464 Chinese respondents aged over 45 years from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study 2011, 2015, and 2018 data sets. Binary logistic regression was used to explore the association of midday napping with hypertension, and the 3-step method was used to test the mediation effect of BMI. Results Among all respondents, the prevalence rates of hypertension were 24.6% (2818/11439) in 2011, 21.1% (2683/12689) in 2015, and 22.1% (2092/9464) in 2018. Midday napping was positively correlated with hypertension. In 2011 and 2015, napping 60 to 90 minutes had the greatest odds ratios [OR] (OR2011 1.705, OR2015 1.494). In 2018, the biggest OR came from the group napping 30 to 60 minutes (OR 1.223), and ORs of different napping durations decreased from 2011 to 2018. In addition, BMI had a partial mediation effect in 2015 and 2018. Conclusions Midday napping is a potential risk factor for hypertension with BMI acting as a mediator. To prevent hypertension, avoiding prolonged duration of midday napping and taking action to maintain a normal BMI level are recommended.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".