Arterial Stiffness, Central Blood Pressure, and the Risk of Incident Stroke in Hypertensive Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Whether hypertensive patients with elevated arterial stiffness and central systolic blood pressure (cSBP) are exposed to higher stroke risk is unclear. METHODS: A total of 6663 participants without a history of cardiovascular disease were enrolled in this study. cSBP was measured noninvasively using the A-Pulse CASPro device; carotid-femoral pulse wave velocity (cfPWV) was collected using a Pulse Pen device. The primary outcome was incident stroke. RESULTS: Over 4.4 years (median), 454 incident strokes occurred (15.92 per 1000 person-years). Compared to the reference group (cSBP < 137 mmHg and cfPWV < 10 m/s), patients with elevated cSBP and cfPWV had a significantly increased risk of incident stroke (HR 1.78 [95% CI 1.39, 2.27]), and were the only group showing statistical significance versus those with solely increased cSBP (HR 1.13 [95% CI 0.87, 1.48]) or cfPWV (HR 1.15 [95% CI 0.87, 1.52]) after adjusting for covariates; p for trend < 0.001. Consistent findings were identified in multiple sensitivity and exploratory analyses. The additive interaction between elevated cSBP and cfPWV was significant, with a relative excess risk due to interaction of 0.55 [95% CI 0.05-1.03]. The association between elevated cSBP and cfPWV with incident stroke risk was more robust among patients who were taking non-guideline recommended antihypertensive medication at baseline (HR 3.03) than among those who took recommended regimens (HR 1.58). CONCLUSIONS: Hypertensive patients with elevated cSBP and cfPWV have a significantly higher risk of incident stroke than those with lower or solely increased cSBP and cfPWV. Greater clinical attention and tailored treatment strategies are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".