Hypertension treatment and control rates: chart review in an academic family medicine clinic.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To characterize hypertension management in an academic family medicine clinic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional chart review. SETTING: Academic family medicine clinic in Edmonton, Alta. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 210 patients with 1 or more visits for hypertension during the previous 3 years. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient characteristics, current antihypertensive therapies, most recent blood pressure measurements, and compelling indications according to the 2006 Canadian Hypertension Education Program recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 185 subjects (88%) were prescribed antihypertensive medications, and 89 (42%) had controlled hypertension. Younger subjects, people with diabetes, and people not receiving antihypertensive medication therapy appeared less likely to have controlled hypertension. There were 76 subjects (36%) prescribed 1 antihypertensive medication, 65 subjects (31%) prescribed 2 antihypertensive medications, and 44 (21%) prescribed 3 or more antihypertensive medications. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors were prescribed for 51% of the subjects, diuretics for 47%, beta-blockers for 27%, calcium channel blockers for 23%, angiotensin receptor blockers for 20%, and alpha-blockers for 1%. CONCLUSION: Hypertension treatment and control rates in this academic family medicine clinic appear to be better than those in the general population. Following the principles of a continuous quality improvement process, this information will serve as an important foundation for identifying areas to improve hypertension management in the clinic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".