MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382653376 · doi:10.1093/eurjpc/zwad219

Orthostatic hypertension is an accessible, low-cost marker of cardiovascular risk

2023· letter· en· W4382653376 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leah Rethy

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Preventive Cardiology · 2023
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOrthostatic vital signsCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Orthostatic hypertension (OHT) is understudied and underrecognized.In fact, OHT is not even defined or commented upon in international hypertension guidelines. 1,2While no specific blood pressure (BP) threshold is consistently used, studies examining OHT typically define OHT as an increase in systolic blood pressure (SBP) 20 mmHg and/or an increase in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) 10 mmHg when moving from a supine to upright position. [3][4]4][5] The mechanisms underlying OHT are thought to include baroreceptor reflex abnormalities, exaggerated adrenergic response to changes in cardiac loading conditions (i.e.decreased preload in the setting of vascular pooling), and endothelial dysfunction. 3Given the possible mechanistic connections between OHT and cardiovascular disease (CVD), a better understanding of its clinical implications is important.In this issue, Pasdar et al. 6 demonstrate a consistent association between OHT and key cardiovascular/cerebrovascular outcomes through a systematic review and meta-analysis of available data.Studies eligible for inclusion were observational (prospective and cross-sectional) and interventional studies, which assessed the association between systolic and/or diastolic OHT and at least one of the following outcomes: allcause mortality, incident coronary heart disease (CHD), heart failure (HF), stroke, falls, or neurocognitive decline.Studies were limited to adults and were conducted in inpatient as well as outpatient settings -both community-dwelling adults and those living in nursing/residential facilities were included.For this analysis, 378 studies were identified with 20 ultimately included, comprising 61 669 participants (47% women) from 12 countries.Of the included studies, one was a post hoc analysis of the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) and the remainder were observational.Participant characteristics varied, but most studies focused on older adults (80% of studies in adults >40 years), and only one excluded individuals with baseline hypertension.Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and studies that the authors identified as relatively homogeneousbased on the study population, design, outcome, and context-were pooled for analysis.Analyses were considered adjusted if they at minimum adjusted for age (although all analyses adjusted for additional factors).Random-effects meta-analyses were conducted using the Cochrane Collaboration statistical software package.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Preventive CardiologySame topicCardiovascular Syncope and Autonomic DisordersFrench-language works237,207