Temporal and Bidirectional Association Between Blood Pressure Variability and Arterial Stiffness: Cross-Lagged Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The causal relationship between blood pressure variability (BPV) and arterial stiffness remains debated. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the temporal and bidirectional associations between long-term BPV and arterial stiffness using a cohort design with multiple surveys. METHODS: Participants from the Beijing Health Management Cohort who underwent health examinations from visit 1 (2010-2011) to visit 5 (2018-2019) were enrolled in this study. Long-term BPV was defined as intraindividual variation using the coefficient of variation (CV) and SD. Arterial stiffness was measured by brachial-ankle pulse wave velocity (baPWV). The bidirectional relationship between BPV and arterial stiffness was explored using cross-lagged analysis and linear regression models, with records before and after visit 3 categorized as phase 1 and phase 2, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 1506 participants, who were a mean of 56.11 (SD 8.57) years old, 1148 (76.2%) were male. The cross-lagged analysis indicated that the standardized coefficients of BPV at phase 1 directing to the baPWV level at phase 2 were statistically significant but not vice-versa. The adjusted regression coefficients of the CV were 4.708 (95% CI 0.946-8.470) for systolic blood pressure, 3.119 (95% 0.166-6.073) for diastolic pressure, and 2.205 (95% CI 0.300-4.110) for pulse pressure. The coefficients of the SD were 4.208 (95% CI 0.177-8.239) for diastolic pressure and 4.247 (95% CI 0.448-8.046) for pulse pressure. The associations were predominant in the subgroup with hypertension, but we did not observe any significant association of baPWV level with subsequent BPV indices. CONCLUSIONS: The findings supported a temporal relationship between long-term BPV and arterial stiffness level, especially among people with 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".