P126 LONG WORKING HOURS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASED BLOOD PRESSURE VARIABILITY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Elevated blood pressure variability (BPV) is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, independently of blood pressure values. Long working hours increase the risk of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. The present study aims to determine whether long working hours have a detrimental effect on BPV. Methods: The present study relied on a prospective cohort of 3 639 white-collar workers in Quebec City evaluated at three visits: at recruitment, 3 years, and 5 years. At each visit, participants wore an ambulatory blood pressure monitor during working hours and answered a questionnaire. Work hours per week were divided into the following categories: 21 to 34 hours, 35 to 40 hours (reference group), and 41 hours or more. Working hours BPV was calculated using average real variability. Results: A total of 7 056 observations (n = 4 234 in women and n = 2 822 in men) were available. Systolic and diastolic BPV were higher in participants working long hours (41 hours and more per week) than in participants working 35 to 40 hours per week. These associations were robust to adjustment for socio-demographics, lifestyle-related and clinical risk factors as well as psychosocial stressors at work (psychological demand – job control and reward). Conclusions: Participants exposed to long working hours showed higher BPV than non-exposed participants. Intervention aiming at reducing long working hours should be considered for the primordial prevention of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. Average real variability of systolic and diastolic blood pressure during working hours according to hours worked per week
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".