MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Counseling African Americans to Control Hypertension

2014· article· en· W1993767468 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gbenga Ogedegbe, Jonathan N. Tobin, Senaida Fernandez, Andrea Cassells, Marleny Diaz-Gloster, Chamanara Khalida, Thomas G. Pickering, Joseph E. Schwartz

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteDavid R. Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future , Cornell UniversityYork University
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyGerontologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Data are limited on the implementation of evidence-based multilevel interventions targeted at blood pressure (BP) control in hypertensive blacks who receive care in low-resource primary care practices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Counseling African Americans to Control Hypertension is a cluster-randomized clinical trial in which 30 community health centers were randomly assigned to the intervention condition (IC) or usual care (UC). Patients at the IC sites received patient education, home BP monitoring, and monthly lifestyle counseling, whereas physicians attended monthly hypertension case rounds and received feedback on their patients' home BP readings and chart audits. Patients and physicians at the UC sites received printed patient education material and hypertension treatment guidelines, respectively. The primary outcome was BP control, and secondary outcomes were mean changes in systolic and diastolic BPs at 12 months, assessed with an automated BP device. A total of 1059 patients (mean age, 56 years; 28% men, 59% obese, and 36% with diabetes mellitus) were enrolled. The BP control rate was similar in both groups (IC=49.3% versus UC=44.5%; odds ratio, 1.21 [95% confidence interval, 0.90-1.63]; P=0.21). In prespecified subgroup analyses, the intervention was associated with greater BP control in patients without diabetes mellitus (IC=54.0% versus UC=44.7%; odds ratio, 1.45 [confidence interval, 1.02-2.06]); and small-sized community health centers (IC=51.1% versus UC=39.6%; odds ratio, 1.45 [confidence interval, 1.04-2.45]). CONCLUSIONS: A practice-based, multicomponent intervention was no better than UC in improving BP control among hypertensive blacks. Future research on the implementation of behavioral modification strategies for hypertension control in low-resource settings should focus on the development of more efficient and tailored interventions in this high-risk population. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00233220.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations82
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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