Using Decomposition Analysis to Identify Modifiable Racial Disparities in the Distribution of Blood Pressure in the United States
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
To lower the prevalence of hypertension and racial disparities in hypertension, public health agencies have attempted to reduce modifiable risk factors for high blood pressure, such as excess sodium intake or high body mass index. In the present study, we used decomposition methods to identify how population-level reductions in key risk factors for hypertension could reshape entire population distributions of blood pressure and associated disparities among racial/ethnic groups. We compared blood pressure distributions among non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Mexican-American persons using data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2010). When using standard adjusted logistic regression analysis, we found that differences in body mass index were the only significant explanatory correlate to racial disparities in blood pressure. By contrast, our decomposition approach provided more nuanced revelations; we found that disparities in hypertension related to tobacco use might be masked by differences in body mass index that significantly increase the disparities between black and white participants. Analysis of disparities between white and Mexican-American participants also reveal hidden relationships between tobacco use, body mass index, and blood pressure. Decomposition offers an approach to understand how modifying risk factors might alter population-level health disparities in overall outcome distributions that can be obscured by standard regression analyses.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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