Risk of Target-Organ Damage in Pediatric Patients with CKD and Ambulatory Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The objective of this systematic review is to determine the association of ambulatory hypertension and various ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) parameters with left ventricular mass index (LVMI) in youth with CKD. Methods: A systematic literature search on nine databases included English publications from 1974-2022. LVMI was indexed to subject height and body surface area (g/m2.7). Correlation coefficients were transformed and pooled using a random effects model. All stages of CKD were included for this review. Normative values of ABPM were derived from the German Working Group on Pediatric Hypertension. Results: Of 1,128 screened studies, 16 studies and 2,254 children and adolescents were included. LVMI was elevated in the CKD hypertensive group compared to the CKD normotensive group (mean difference: 6.22 g/m2.7, 95% CI: 4.80-7.65). Youth with hypertension were at 3.34 (95% CI: 2.38-4.68) higher odds of left ventricular hypertrophy compared to normotensive children. Conclusion: Pediatric CKD patients with ambulatory hypertension especially during nighttime were more likely to have higher LVMI and left ventricular hypertrophy. Adequate blood pressure control among children with CKD may be crucial to avoid the risk of target organ damage and future cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".