Validity of self-reported blood pressure control in people with hypertension attending a primary care center
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to estimate the validity of self-reported blood pressure control and medication use in people with hypertension, with and without diabetes. METHODS: In a sample of 161 patients with hypertension in a family health team in Ontario, we applied questions from the 2009 Survey on Living with Chronic Disease in Canada Hypertension Component and compared responses against objectively measured and chart-abstracted clinical indicators. Objective blood pressure control was defined as a blood pressure of less than 130/80 mmHg and less than 140/90 mmHg for individuals with and without diabetes, respectively. RESULTS: Self-reported blood pressure control showed reasonable sensitivity (83±11 and 78±10%) but low specificity (30±19 and 58±21%) in people with and those without diabetes, respectively. In the subgroup with diabetes, specificity improved to 88±11% when blood pressure control was defined on the basis of a 140/90 mmHg target. Self-reported and chart-abstracted numbers of prescribed antihypertensive medications showed fair agreement (κ=0.7); 9 and 14% of patients overestimated and underestimated the number of prescribed medications, respectively. CONCLUSION: Although most individuals with controlled hypertension reported having controlled blood pressure, a large proportion of individuals with uncontrolled hypertension also reported that their blood pressure was controlled. This level of misclassification suggests that in a family medicine clinic population and in health survey contexts, a self-reported measure of blood pressure control may not be useful for assessing hypertension 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.
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) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it