Distribution of blood pressure and hypertension in Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Two North American population based surveys, the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES III) and the Canadian Heart Health Surveys (CHHS) have similar time frames and methods that allow comparisons between these countries in terms of the distribution of systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure and the levels of hypertension awareness, treatment, and control. METHODS: Cross-sectional population surveys using similar methods conducted home interviews and clinic visits (CHHS), and medical examinations (NHANES III). The CHHS included the ten Canadian provinces (1986-1992) and NHANES III, a representative sample of the United States population (1988-1994). Blood pressure measurements were available for 23,111 Canadians (age 18-74 years), and restricted to the 15,326 US participants in the same age range (age 18-74 years) with both systolic and diastolic mean values. Standardized techniques were used for BP measurements. Mean of all available measurements was used from four measurements for the CHHS and six measurements for NHANES III. A mean SBP/DBP of 140/90 mm Hg or treated with medication defined hypertension. All measures were weighted to represent population values. RESULTS: Both surveys showed similar trends in mean BP by age, with slightly higher levels in the CHHS. Hypertension prevalence using the same definitions and the same age range (18-74 years) was NHANES III: 20.1%, CHHS: 21.1%. Although the prevalence of isolated systolic hypertension (ISH) was similar in both studies, around 8% to 9%, the CHHS had higher ISH prevalence than NHANES III in the younger age groups and lower prevalence in the older age groups. Elevated SBP dominated the prevalence figures after the 1950s in both studies. Compared to NHANES III, the CHHS showed a lower proportion (43% v 50%) of individuals with optimal BP (< 120/80 mm Hg) and a very low proportion of hypertensives under control (13% v 25%). About half of diabetic participants were hypertensive (using 140/90 mm Hg) in both countries with a very low level of control in Canada (9%) v the US (36%) for ages 18 to 74 years. CONCLUSIONS: The results of these two surveys highlight the importance of SBP, in the later decades of life, an overall low control of hypertension in both countries, and a better overall awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in the US than in Canada for that period. Dissemination of hypertension guidelines and a more aggressive focus on SBP are urgently needed in Canada, with special attention to diabetics.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".