¿Evaluamos y controlamos adecuadamente a los hipertensos atendidos en atención primaria?: Estudio HICAP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The HICAP study assessed the cardiovascular (CV) global risk and the CV risk factors control in hypertensive patients managed in Primary Care (PC) in Spain. METHODS: Cross-sectional and multilocated study in which each investigator included data from 5 consecutives hypertensive patients. A routine laboratory test and a ECG from the previous 6 months had to be available for each patients CV global risk evaluation, blood pressure (BP) and diabetes control was based on ESH-ESC 2003; lipid profile evaluation was based on NCEP 2001 (ATP III) RESULTS: 1288 PC physicians included 6719 hypertensive patients, and data from 6375 patients were analyzed.64.5% (CI95%: 63.3-65.7) of the hypertensive patients managed in Primary Care showed a high or very high CV global risk.BP was controlled in 39.3% (CI95%: 38.1-40.5) of patients, 10.5% (CI95%: 9.1-11.9)among diabetics. 37.3% (CI95%: 35-38.7) of diabetics showed HbA1c < 6.5% and 18.8% (CI95%: 17.6-20) of dyslipidemic subjects had their LDL-c controlled. The control was lower among the patients at higher CV global risk. CONCLUSIONS: These results demostrate the high proportion of hypertensive patients that present a high CV global risk. The cardiovascular risk factors control, specially among patients at higher CV global risk, is insufficient.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".