The inter-arm systolic blood pressure difference and risk of cardiovascular mortality: A meta-analysis of cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inter-arm systolic blood pressure difference (SBPD) is recommended to be in relation to potential cardiovascular disease (CVD). Previous studies yielded controversial results about the association between an inter-arm SBPD ≥ 10 mmHg or ≥15 mmHg and the risk of cardiovascular mortality. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate this association. We searched PubMed and Embase databases through December 31, 2014, and examined the references of retrieved articles to identify relevant cohort studies. We utilized Newcastle–Ottawa scale to assess the quality of included studies and calculated the summary risk estimates in a fixed/random-effect model. All data analyses were conducted using STATA version 11.0. A total of seven studies were identified. Compared with participants with an inter-arm SBPD < 10 mmHg, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) of CVD mortality of those with an inter-arm SBPD ≥ 10 mmHg was 1.58 (95% CI: 1.3–1.93)，and the pooled HR of cardiovascular mortality of participants with an inter-arm SBPD ≥ 15 mmHg versus those with an inter-arm SBPD < 15 mmHg was 1.88 (95% CI: 1.33–2.66). The findings from the present meta-analysis indicated that the detection of an inter-arm SBPD may define a subpopulation at high risk of CVD events.
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 | 0.019 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".