MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111553748

Blood pressure in Canadian adults.

2010· article· en· W2111553748 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kathryn Wilkins, Norman R.C. Campbell, Michel R. Joffres, Finlay A. McAlister, Marianne Nichol, Susan Quach, Mark S. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureDiastolePrehypertensionIsolated systolic hypertensionPopulationInternal medicineCardiologyPediatricsDemographyEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is estimated to cause more than one-eighth of all deaths worldwide. In Canada, the last national surveys to include direct measures of blood pressure (BP) took place over the years 1985-1992; hypertension was estimated at 21%. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from cycle 1 of the Canadian Health Measures Survey, conducted from March 2007 through February 2009. The survey included direct BP measures using an automated device. Weighted frequencies, means and cross-tabulations were produced to estimate levels of hypertension awareness, treatment and control in the population aged 20 to 79 years. RESULTS: Among adults aged 20 to 79 years, hypertension (systolic BP higher than or equal to 140 or diastolic BP higher than or equal to 90 mm Hg, or self-reported recent medication use for high BP) was present in 19%. Another 20% had BP in the pre-hypertension range (systolic 120 to 139 or diastolic 80 to 89 mm Hg). Of those with hypertension, 83% were aware, 80% were taking antihypertensive drugs, and 66% were controlled. Uncontrolled hypertension was largely due to high systolic BP. INTERPRETATION: Hypertension prevalence is similar to that reported in 1992. Since then, the level of hypertension control has increased considerably.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.524
Threshold uncertainty score0.841

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations217
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207