The role of epigenetics in hypertension of children and adolescents: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epigenetic modifications are known to contribute to the pathophysiology of hypertension. Only a few studies that have been done to comprehensively evaluate the possibility role of epigenetic changes on the risk of high blood pressure, specifically in children and adolescents. This systematic review study aimed to discuss about the possibility role of epigenetic in hypertension of children and adolescent. This evidence-based research is implemented within the scope of the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) 2020. The data were analyzed qualitatively to assess the risk of bias, with the New Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Agency for Health Research and Quality (AHRQ) criteria as the thresholds. Our research highlights in particular showed that there is a role for epigenetics in hypertension in children and adolescents. Fourteen journals were included to be qualitatively assessed. Eleven journals (78.5%) stated that there was a correlation between epigenetic and blood pressure in children and adolescents, however each study examined different genes or loci. In summary, epigenetic modifications of various single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and other genes were associated with higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure in children and adolescents.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".