Mortality among patients with hypertension from 1995 to 2005: a population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have reported that the prevalence of diagnosed hypertension increased by 60% from 1995 to 2005 in Ontario. In the present study, we asked whether this increase is explained by a decrease in the mortality rate. METHODS: We performed a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data for Ontario, a Canadian province with over 12 million residents. We identified prevalent cases of hypertension using a validated case-definition algorithm for hypertension, and we examined trends in mortality from 1995 to 2005 among adults aged 20 years and older with hypertension. RESULTS: The age- and sex-adjusted mortality among patients with hypertension decreased from 11.3 per 1000 people in 1995 to 9.6 per 1000 in 2005 (p < 0.001), which is a relative reduction of 15.5%. We found that the relative decrease in age-adjusted mortality was higher among men than among women (-22.2% v. -7.3%, p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: Mortality rates among patients with hypertension have decreased. Along with an increasing incidence, decreased mortality rates may contribute to the increased prevalence of diagnosed hypertension. Sex-related discrepancies in the reduction of mortality warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".