Protocol-Based Treatment of Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Improved treatment of hypertension is among the most important-and quite possibly also the single most neglected-area of clinical medicine.Only half of Americans with hypertension have blood pressure less than 140/90 mm Hg, and more than 13%-an estimated 9 million people-have a systolic blood pressure of 160 mm Hg or higher and/or diastolic pressure of 100 mm Hg or higher. 1 Much better control is possible: Canada has a rate of blood pressure control of more than 65%, 2 and the Minneapolis-St Paul region has a level of blood pressure control more than 20 percentage points higher than the United States as a whole. 3The United States is making progress, but this progress is painfully slow-the rate of control is increasing only 1% per year. 4 simple numbers, it is estimated that nearly 36 million US adults have uncontrolled blood pressure, with 2 major subgroups that would benefit from protocol-based care. 1 The first is the large number of people-14 million-who are unaware of their hypertension. 1Most of these people are hiding in plain sight: they are in clinical treatment with elevated blood pressure documented, but hypertension neither diagnosed nor treated.High-performing systems can reduce by half the proportion of hypertensive patients unaware of their blood pressure and not being treated. 5The second group is the estimated 16 million people who know they have hypertension and are taking medication for it, but do not yet have it under control. 1 Thirty-two million of the 36 million whose blood pressure is uncontrolled have a usual source of care and 30 million are insured, including 14 million Medicare beneficiaries.But the most compelling statistic-and the one that makes the case for more focused clinical attention-is that nearly 3 of 4 people with uncontrolled hypertension (an estimated 26 million people) visited a health care professional at least twice in the prior year. 1 Opportunities are being missed to initiate and improve care of patients with hypertension, and as a result they are experiencing preventable myocardial infarctions, strokes, and kidney
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".