Controlled Blood Pressure in Iranian Patients: A Multi-Center Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We decided to determine the percentage of hypertensive patients whose blood pressure (BP) measurements were within recommended controlled range and to identify predictive factors for controlled BP. In this study carried out in 2014, 280 patients were included consecutively through sampling from both university and private medical centers/pharmacies in four Iranian cities. Demographic data as well as information about duration of HTN and prescribed medications, admission to emergency department (ED) because of HTN crisis, comorbidities, and control of HTN during the last 6 months by a healthcare provider were gathered. Adherence to anti-hypertensives was also determined using the validated Persian version of the 8-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS-8). Controlled BP was defined as systolic BP< 140 and diastolic BP< 90 mmHg in non-diabetics and < 130/80 mmHg in diabetics. Of 280 patients, 122 subjects (43.6%) had controlled BP. Among 55 diabetics, only two patients (3.6%) had controlled BP. Multiple logistic regression revealed the following variables as significant predictors of controlled BP: higher MMAS-8 score (adjusted odds ratio (OR)= 1.19, P= 0.03), fewer number of comorbid conditions (adjusted OR= 0.71, P = 0.03), having occupation as clerk/military personnel (adjusted OR= 1.03, P= 0.04), and not having history of ED admission during the last 6 months because of HTN crisis (adjusted OR= 2.11, P= 0.01). Considerable number of the studied patients had uncontrolled BP. Regarding the dramatic consequences of uncontrolled high BP in long term, it is advisable that careful attention by health care providers to the aforementioned factors could raise the likelihood of achieving controlled BP.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".