Serum vitamin D, blood pressure and hypertension risk in the HUNT study using observational and Mendelian randomization approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited studies have triangulated the relationship between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] levels and systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) or hypertension risk utilizing both observational and Mendelian randomization (MR) approaches. We employed data from the Norwegian Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT) to conduct cross-sectional (n = 5854) and prospective (n = 3592) analyses, as well as one-sample MR (n = 86,324). We also used largest publicly available data for two-sample MR. Our cross-sectional analyses showed a 25 nmol/L increase in 25(OH)D was associated with a 1.73 mmHg decrease in SBP (95% CI - 2.46 to - 1.01), a 0.91 mmHg decrease in DBP (95% CI - 1.35 to - 0.47) and 19% lower prevalence of hypertension (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.90) after adjusting for important confounders. However, these associations disappeared in prospective analyses. One-sample and two-sample MR results further suggested no causal relationship between serum vitamin D levels and blood pressure or hypertension risk in the general population.
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 | 0.030 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".