Prevalence and Severity of Hypertensive Retinopathy in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National High Blood Pressure Education Program (NHBPEP) report recommends a retinal exam seeking evidence of target organ damage in hypertensive children. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and severity of hypertensive retinopathy among hypertensive children, evaluated by pediatric ophthalmologists in the "real world" clinical setting using direct ophthalmoscopy. The authors retrospectively reviewed the medical records of the 83 children diagnosed with hypertension by a pediatric nephrologist between 1999 and 2006. Of the 35 children examined by an ophthalmologist within 12 months of the diagnosis of hypertension, only 3 (8.6%; 95% CI, 1.8%-23.1%) were diagnosed with hypertensive retinopathy. Despite the fact that those selected for retinal examination were likely at higher risk for retinopathy, the prevalence of retinopathy was low, and only mild abnormalities were detected. Given the lack of evidence linking mild retinal abnormalities with adverse outcomes, the NHBPEP recommendation for retinal examinations in hypertensive children should be reconsidered.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".