The Quality of Life of Patients With Hypertension
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
The authors evaluated the self-reported quality of life in patients with systemic arterial hypertension and assessed whether clinicians and normotensive respondents from the general public appreciate the impact that hypertension has on health-related quality of life. A quality-of-life questionnaire was completed by 385 individuals: persons with hypertension (n=188), normotensive persons (n=148), and clinicians (n=49). A utility score, which represents one's self-perceived health-related quality of life, was generated for each group by using standardized time tradeoff questionnaires. Quality of life with hypertension was judged to be significantly higher according to affected individuals (mean utility score, 0.980), compared with normotensive persons (mean utility score, 0.948) and clinicians (mean utility score, 0.942), who were asked to assume that they had hypertension (p<0.0005). Clinicians and normotensive individuals tend to overemphasize the impact that hypertension has on quality of life, as compared to affected patients. The relatively low impact that hypertensive individuals indicate high blood pressure has on their quality of life may contribute to their lack of compliance with treatment regimens.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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