Patient-, Provider-, and Clinic-Level Predictors of Unrecognized Elevated Blood Pressure in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The goal was to determine patient-, provider-, and clinic-level predictors of unrecognized elevated blood pressure (BP) in children. We hypothesized that being of healthy weight, having a BP of <120/80 mmHg, and being seen by a less experienced provider would result in decreased recognition. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of clinic visits for children 3 to 20 years of age at an urban, pediatric primary care practice between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2006, was performed. Children with elevated systolic or diastolic BP (> or = 90th percentile or > or = 120/80 mmHg) were included. Recognition was defined as having any of the following documented: repeat BP measurement, elevated-BP/hypertension diagnosis, plan to recheck BP, or initiation of hypertension evaluation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify characteristics associated with underrecognition. RESULTS: Elevated BP occurred in 779 (39%) of 2000 visits. Of 726 cases included in the analysis, 87% were not recognized by providers. Patient-level predictors of underrecognition included systolic BP of <120 mmHg (odds ratio: 7.7 [95% confidence interval: 3.2-18.6]), diastolic BP of <80 mmHg (odds ratio: 2.4 [95% confidence interval: 1.1-5.0]), decreasing BMI z score, male gender, older age, lack of family history of cardiovascular disease, and negative medical history findings. Being seen by a nurse practitioner and being seen by a less-experienced provider also were significant predictors. CONCLUSIONS: Most BP elevations were not recognized by providers. Poor recognition was most influenced by the absence of obviously elevated BP, obesity, and family history 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".