MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2042610176 · doi:10.1016/s0895-7061(01)02211-7

Distribution of blood pressure and hypertension in Canada and the United States

2001· article· en· W2042610176 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersHealth CanadaBristol-Myers Squibb CanadaBristol-Myers SquibbU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyPopulationDemographyDiastoleEpidemiologyCross-sectional studyPediatricsInternal medicineEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.426
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.201 · 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