SCORE model underestimates cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients: Results of the Polish Hypertension Registry
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of Systemic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE) charts and European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) hypertension guidelines for identifying high-risk hypertensive patients. METHODS. The data on hypertensive patients was collected using the Polish Hypertension Registry. We enrolled 636 patients (357 females and 279 males, mean age 54.4 (+/-) 7.9 years) from hypertension centres in Poland. RESULTS. Only 3.5% of the subjects had no additional risk factors. Thirty-six per cent of the patients had three or more risk factors. Metabolic syndrome was found in 40.1% of the patients. According to the SCORE charts, 9.0% of females and 27.2% of males had high to very high cardiovascular risk (p < 0.001). Taking into account risk factors and the metabolic syndrome, 55.7% of females and 56.3% of males (p = NS) had high or very high additional cardiovascular risk according to the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines. For both females and males, the prevalence of high to very high risk was greater (p < 0.001) from the calculation based on the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines than from the SCORE charts. Fifty-two per cent of patients classified as low to moderate risk according to the SCORE system, had high or very high risk according to the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines. CONCLUSIONS. The SCORE charts seem to underestimate the burden of the cardiovascular risk among hypertensive patients. The cardiovascular risk, especially in the hypertensive female population, seems to be much higher when estimated according to the 2007 ESH/ESC guidelines.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it