Sex differences in risk factor control of treated hypertensives: a national primary healthcare-based study in Sweden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To evaluate potential sex differences, this study aimed to investigate blood pressure and lipid control and other risk factors for cardiovascular disease in treated hypertensive (tHT) patients from primary healthcare. DESIGN AND METHODS: This cross-sectional survey of tHT patients was carried out between 2002 and 2005 by 264 primary care physicians from Sweden who consecutively recruited 6537 tHT patients (48% men and 52% women) from medical records. RESULTS: tHT men more often reached the treatment goal for systolic/diastolic blood pressure, less than 140/90 mmHg, than tHT women (30 vs. 26%, P<0.01). Men had lower systolic blood pressure than women, however, women had lower diastolic blood pressure and higher pulse pressure. More tHT women had total cholesterol>or=5.0 mmol/l than corresponding men (75 vs. 64% P<0.001). Men more often had diabetes (25 vs. 20% P<0.001), left ventricular hypertrophy (20 vs. 16% P<0.001), and microalbuminuria (24 vs. 16% P<0.001). Women were more often treated with diuretics (64 vs. 48%) and beta-receptor blockers (54 vs. 51%), and men more often treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (27 vs. 18%), calcium channel blockers (34 vs. 26%), and lipid-lowering drugs (34 vs. 29%). CONCLUSION: A need still exists for more intensified treatment of elevated blood pressure and hypercholesterolemia, especially in women. In hypertensives of both sexes, smoking and other risk factors also need to be addressed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".