Blacks and whites in Cuba have equal prevalence of hypertension: confirmation from a new population survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The excess burden of hypertension among blacks has been a prominent feature of the heath disparities literature, and many scientists presume it to be a stable and inevitable phenomenon. The underlying causes of this disparity can only be disentangled in a setting in which the population does not experience racial stratification of socioeconomic opportunities. While such conditions of racial equality remain uncommon, they may be approximated in Cuba, a country with a persistent policy of social inclusion over the last 5 decades. METHODS: We report on a 2010-2011 stratified probability sample of those aged 15-74 years from the urban population of Cienfuegos in central Cuba. A total of 1496 adults (880 women and 616 men) were recruited and assessed for blood pressure and anthropometrics according to standardized protocols, as well as medication use, educational attainment and observed skin tone (dichotomized into "black" and "white"). Weighted tabular and regression analyses were conducted to estimate adjusted prevalences of hypertension (> 140/90 mmHg) and adjusted prevalence odds ratios for contrasts between the two skin color groups. RESULTS: Mean pressures were higher for men than for women, but overall did not differ importantly between racial groups. About half of all diagnosed hypertensive men were on medication, a proportion that did not vary by racial group. For women, however, adjusted prevalence was somewhat higher among blacks, and treatment and control rates were also somewhat advantaged for white women. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, skin color was unrelated to mean blood pressure or hypertensive status in this population, although among women specifically some racial advantage appears evident in adjusted prevalence and control, and should be investigated further. The overall null result suggests that Cuba may exemplify the social conditions in which racial excess in hypertension, characteristic of much of the western world, is not a necessary reality.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".