Do Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension Improve Cardiovascular Outcome? The Canadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Hypertension Education Program (CHEP) was established in 1999 as a response to the result of a national survey that showed that a high percentage of Canadians were unaware of having hypertension with only 13% of those treated for hypertension having their blood pressure controlled. The CHEP formulates yearly recommendations based on published evidence. A repeat survey in 2006 showed that the percentage of treated hypertensive patients with the blood pressure controlled had risen to 65.7%. Over the first decade of the existence of the CHEP, the number of prescriptions for antihypertensive medications had increased by 84.4% associated with a significant greater decline in the yearly mortality from stroke, heart failure and myocardial infarction and a significant decrease in the hospitalization for stroke and heart failure. Therefore, the introduction of the CHEP and the yearly issue of updated recommendations resulted in a significant increase in the awareness, diagnosis and treatment of hypertension and in a significant reduction in stroke and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The CHEP model could serve as a template for its adoption to other regions or countries.
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 | 0.046 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".