MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056137516 · doi:10.1111/jch.12214

Changes in Hypertension Treatment in the Yaroslavl Region of Russia: Improvements Observed Between 2 Cross‐Sectional Surveys

2013· article· en· W2056137516 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Mozheyko, S. Ya. Eregin, Alexey Vigdorchik, Sheldon W. Tobe, Norman R.C. Campbell, Farhad Riahi, David Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersNovartis Pharma
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureHypertension treatmentCross-sectional studyInternal medicineHeart rateCardiologyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This prospective before-and-after survey of hypertensive patients visiting government-run outpatient health facilities in the Yaroslavl Region of Russia assessed blood pressure (BP)-related endpoints following initiation of a comprehensive health system improvement program for hypertension. Two cross-sectional surveys, one at baseline and the other approximately 1 year after program initiation, evaluated the primary measure of BP control rate. Secondary measures included mean BP levels and distribution, cardiovascular risk factors, and associated conditions, heart rate levels, and antihypertensive therapy. From the 2011 survey (n=1794) to the 2012 survey (n=2992), BP control rate (<140/90 mm Hg) significantly increased from 16.8% to 23.0%, reflecting a 37% relative improvement (P<.0001). Mean BP level was significantly reduced from 151/90 mm Hg to 147/88 mm Hg (P<.0001). Severe uncontrolled hypertension (systolic BP ≥180 mm Hg) was reduced from 9.7% to 6.4% (P<.0001). Implementing a guidelines-based treatment protocol with medical and patient education programs resulted in physician behavior change and improved patient BP control.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.554

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.112 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207