Prevalence of Hypertension in Hispanic and non-Hispanic White Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mexican nationals in Mexico City and Mexican Americans in San Antonio, Tex, have a lower adjusted prevalence of hypertension than San Antonio non-Hispanic whites, especially after adjusting for the greater obesity of San Antonio Mexican Americans. The concomitant examination of a new study from Spain may better explain the association of genetic and environmental factors with hypertension. Three population-based epidemiological studies conducted in Mexico City, Spain, and San Antonio, Tex, were available for comparisons. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure > or = 140 mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure > or = 90 mm Hg, or the use of antihypertensive medications. The prevalence of hypertension was independently associated with age, body mass index, glucose tolerance, and alcohol consumption, with comparable degrees of relationship in all 4 populations. Relative to San Antonio non-Hispanic whites, an excess prevalence of hypertension was observed in Spaniards (odds ratio [OR], 1.53; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.24 to 1.90). A deficit in hypertension prevalence was statistically significant in Mexican nationals (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.85) and close to significance in San Antonio Mexican Americans (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71 to 1.03). Thus, obesity, educational attainment, type 2 diabetes, glucose tolerance, and marked alcohol consumption (> or = 14 drinks/wk) do not fully explain the increased prevalence of hypertension in Spain and the lower prevalence of hypertension in Mexican-origin populations. Although we cannot conclude definitively that these differences are genetically driven, our results suggest no relationship between Spanish genetic admixture and the deficit in hypertension prevalence in Mexican-origin populations.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".