MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

20. Association of Dipping Status on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring with Cardiocerebrovascular Events in Patients with Essential Hypertension: A Meta-Analysis Study

2024· article· en· W4400547508 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Syahpri Putra Wangsa, Eddy Yuristo, Zulkhair Ali, Ian Effendi, Novadian, Suprapti, Herleni Kartika, Deddy Primadona Mulia, Kgs. M. Yusuf Arief Akbar, Elfiani, Rery Tri Ferry Yuniarti, Novandra Abdillah Pratama, Chairil Makky, Edy Nur Rachman, Eva Julita

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAmbulatory blood pressureAmbulatoryBlood pressureInternal medicineMeta-analysisAssociation (psychology)Masked HypertensionCardiologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Essential hypertension is a major risk factor for the occurrence of cardiocerebrovascular events (CCE). Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has become an important tool in blood pressure monitoring in patients with hypertension, and the concept of “dipping status” which refers to a decrease in blood pressure during sleep, has gained significant attention as a potential predictor for cardiovascular events. Objective: to evaluate the association between dipping status on ABPM and cardiovascular events in patients with essential hypertension. Method: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Study searches were conducted in PubMed, Sciencedirect, and Proquest as well as manual searches using the snowballing method. Inclusion criteria were studies with research subjects of essential hypertension patients who underwent ABPM examination. Dipping status was considered positive if there was a >10% decrease in blood pressure at night during sleep. Included studies must contain data on the outcomes of CCE for a minimum period of six months. Study review was conducted according to the PRISMA flowchart. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for cohort studies. Study results were displayed as forest plots. Result: The meta-analysis included data from seven observational studies that included 10990 patients with essential hypertension. That patients with dipping status on ABPM had a lower risk of CCE compared with patients without dipping status (OR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.59-0.92, p Conclusion: that dipping status on ABPM is a protective factor against CCE in patients with essential 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.103

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.055
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207