Prevalence and incidence of hypertension from 1995 to 2005: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Researchers have predicted that there will be a relative increase of 24% in the prevalence of hypertension in developed countries from 2000 to 2025. Hypertension is a leading risk factor for death, stroke, cardiovascular disease and renal disease. Thus, accurate estimates of the prevalence of hypertension in a population have important implications for public policy. We sought to assess whether the estimated increase in the prevalence of hypertension has been underestimated. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data for adults aged 20 years and older in Ontario, Canada's most populous province with more than 12 million residents. Using a validated case-definition algorithm for hypertension, we examined trends in prevalence from 1995 to 2005 and in incidence from 1997 to 2004. RESULTS: The number of adults with hypertension more than doubled from 1995 to 2005. The age- and sex-adjusted prevalence increased from 153.1 per 1000 adults in 1995 to 244.8 per 1000 in 2005, which was a relative increase of 60.0% (p < 0.001). The age- and sex-adjusted incidence of hypertension increased from 25.5 per 1000 adults in 1997 to 32.1 per 1000 in 2004, which was a relative increase of 25.7% (p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: Our findings indicate that the rise in hypertension prevalence will likely far exceed the predicted prevalence for 2025. Public health strategies to prevent and manage hypertension and its sequelae are urgently needed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".