MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969023334 · doi:10.1001/jama.2014.2531

Proportion of US Adults Potentially Affected by the 2014 Hypertension Guideline

2014· article· en· W1969023334 on OpenAlexaff
Ann Marie Navar‐Boggan, Michael Pencina, Ken Williams, Allan D. Sniderman, Eric D. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityRoyal Victoria Hospital
FundersDuke Clinical Research InstituteEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineBlood pressureNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyDiabetes mellitusCross-sectional studyInternal medicinePhysical therapyPopulationEnvironmental healthPathologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IMPORTANCE: The new 2014 blood pressure (BP) guideline released by the panel members appointed to the Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC 8; 2014 BP guideline) proposed less restrictive BP targets for adults aged 60 years or older and for those with diabetes and chronic kidney disease. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of US adults potentially affected by recent changes in recommendations for management of hypertension. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, nationally representative survey. PARTICIPANTS: Using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey between 2005 and 2010 (n = 16,372), we evaluated hypertension control and treatment recommendations for US adults. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of adults estimated to meet guideline-based BP targets under the 2014 BP guideline and under the previous seventh Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC 7) guideline. RESULTS: The proportion of younger adults (18-59 years) with treatment-eligible hypertension under the JNC 7 guideline was 20.3% (95% CI, 19.1%-21.4%) and decreased to 19.2% (95% CI, 18.1%-20.4%) under the 2014 BP guideline. Larger declines were observed among older adults (≥60 years), decreasing from 68.9% (95% CI, 66.9%-70.8%) under JNC 7 to 61.2% (95% CI, 59.3%-63.0%) under the 2014 BP guideline. The proportion of adults with treatment-eligible hypertension who met BP goals increased slightly for younger adults, from 41.2% (95% CI, 38.1%-44.3%) under JNC 7 to 47.5% (95% CI, 44.4%-50.6%) under the 2014 BP guideline, and more substantially for older adults, from 40.0% (95% CI, 37.8%-42.3%) under JNC 7 to 65.8% (95% CI, 63.7%-67.9%) under the 2014 BP guideline. Overall, 1.6% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.9%) of US adults aged 18-59 years and 27.6% (95% CI, 25.9%-29.3%) of adults aged 60 years or older were receiving BP-lowering medication and meeting more stringent JNC 7 targets. These patients may be eligible for less stringent or no BP therapy with the 2014 BP guideline. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Compared with the JNC 7 guideline, the 2014 BP guideline from the panel members appointed to the JNC 8 was associated with a reduction in the proportion of US adults recommended for hypertension treatment and a substantial increase in the proportion of adults considered to have achieved goal BP, primarily in older adults.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations103
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207