The association between copeptin and hypertension in children and adolescents: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Copeptin, a stable surrogate marker of arginine vasopressin, has been implicated in blood pressure regulation, but its role in pediatric hypertension remains unclear. This systematic review evaluates the association between copeptin levels and hypertension in children and adolescents. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library up to February 21, 2025. Additional sources, including Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles, were screened to ensure literature saturation. Observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional) assessing copeptin levels in relation to blood pressure in pediatric populations (< 18 years) were included. Copeptin levels were assessed using validated biochemical methods, including enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the quality of included studies. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measurements, a narrative synthesis was performed. Twelve studies met the inclusion criteria, with sample sizes ranging from 25 to 351 participants. Some studies reported a significant association between higher copeptin levels and hypertension, particularly in children with obesity or metabolic disorders. However, other studies found no significant correlation. Differences in study design, sample characteristics, copeptin measurement methods, and confounding factors contributed to the heterogeneity of findings. The evidence on the association between copeptin and hypertension in children is inconclusive. While some studies support its potential role as a biomarker, inconsistencies highlight the need for standardized methodologies and longitudinal studies. Future research should explore copeptin's clinical utility in pediatric hypertension risk stratification.Systematic review registration number PROSPERO: CRD420251003190.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".