LONG TERM FOLLOW-UP OF ADOLESCENTS WITH WHITE COAT HYPERTENSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: White coat hypertension (WCH) defined as elevated office blood pressure (BP) with normal ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is diagnosed in up to 43% of adolescents referred for hypertension based on office BP. Prospective data on adults show that WCH may be associated with the development of sustained hypertension (SH), hypertension-mediated organ damage (HMOD), and consequently, a higher cardiovascular risk. The aim of our study was to re-evaluate a group of young adults who were diagnosed with WCH in their adolescence. Design and method: 27 patients diagnosed with WCH at the age of 14.5±2.5 years, with full diagnostic assessment (anthropometry, biochemistry, office BP, ABPM, central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) and augmentation pressure (AugPress), carotid intima media thickness – cIMT, left ventricular mass – LVMi and pulse wave velocity – PWV) were re-evaluated after 8.3±1.2 years. Results: At the time of WCH diagnosis, left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) was diagnosed in 3/27 (11%), increased cIMT in 3/27 (11%), and increased PWV in 19/27 (70%). At the 2nd measurement 8 years after, 20/27 (74%) normalized BP or maintained their WCH status, whereas 7/27 (26%) developed SH. Waist circumference, total and LDL-cholesterol, fasting glycemia, cSBP, PWV, cIMT and LVMI increased in normal BP/WCH and SH subjects, not significantly different between WCH and SH subjects except for LVMI (higher increase in SH). At the 2nd measurement LVH was diagnosed in 3/20 (15%), increased cIMT in 0/20 and increased PWV in 4/20 (20%) WCH patients and in 2/7 (29%), 0/7, and 2/7 (29%) of SH patients, respectively. Despite having lower 24h BP values (p<0.05), patients who normalized BP/maintained WCH had lower LDL cholesterol values at the time of WCH diagnosis (85±27 vs 103±30 mg/dL; p<0.05). LVMi was significantly higher at follow-up in patients who developed SH (p=0.001). Conclusions: Children with WCH are at risk of developing SH and HMOD, therefore, this group should be closely monitored. The presence of lipid disorders may be an additional parameter assessing the risk of developing SH in this group.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".