Cannabis use in relation to Pulse Pressure and Mean Arterial Pressure in US Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Pulse pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) have been well-established as markers of cardiovascular risk in clinical settings. We aimed to determine the impact of cannabis use on both PP and MAP in U.S. adults and to assess the modifying role of sex. Methods We abstracted data from the 2009 to 2018 National Health and Nutrition Examination survey (NHANES). Cannabis use was assessed by NHANES professionals in adults aged 18 to 59 years by using computer-assisted self-interviews. We defined PP as the difference between systolic and diastolic BP, and MAP as diastolic BP plus one third of PP. We used multivariable linear models to estimate the covariates-adjusted associations and assessed effect modification by including sex×exposure interaction terms into the model. Results The mean age of the study population (n=8,942) was 35.0±11.9 years, with 51% female (n=4,551). Mean±SD PP and MAP were 46±13 mm Hg and 82±13 mm Hg, respectively. We found a significant interaction between sex and cannabis use in relation to PP ( P =0.0878) and no interaction when modeling MAP ( P =0.2084). The mean difference of PP between cannabis users and never-users increased with the frequency of use per week, being +4.5 mm Hg ( P =0.0004) in those who reported 1 use/week, +4.9 mm Hg ( P <0.0001) for 2-3 uses/week and +4.9 mm Hg ( P <0.0001) for ≥ 4 uses/week. In females, only those who reported ≥ 4 uses/week showed a higher PP (+3.1 mm Hg; P =0.0050) compared with never-users. Conclusions In US adults aged 18 to 59 years, cannabis use is associated with widening of PP in males. CLINICAL PERSPECTIVES What is new? We first investigated the cannabis use in relation to PP and MAP and found that cannabis use is associated with widened PP in sex-specific manner. What are the clinical implications? Further evidence from cohort studies is required before it can be firmly concluded that cannabis use is linked to increased PP. Patients should stop cannabis use to optimize treatments with reduction of PP as specific therapeutic target.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".