Prehypertension and hypertension in a primary care practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of prehypertension and the prevalence and treatment of hypertension in a family practice population. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: An academic family practice unit. PARTICIPANTS: Practice patients aged 30 to 80 years who had visited the clinic at least once during the 2 years before the study and had at least 1 blood pressure (BP) measurement recorded on their charts during that time period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Most recent BP recorded on the chart; presence or absence of a diagnosis of hypertension recorded on the chart; number and class of prescribed antihypertensive medications. RESULTS: Of the 1388 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 389 had a diagnosis of hypertension. Of the 999 who did not have a diagnosis of hypertension, 306 (30.6%) met the criteria for prehypertension used in this study (systolic BP of 130 to 139 mm Hg or diastolic BP of 85 to 89 mm Hg). Men and older patients (60 to 80 years of age) were more likely to have prehypertension than other patients were. Of the patients with hypertension, 254 (65%) had achieved a BP level of < 140/90 mm Hg. The majority of hypertensive patients were prescribed 1 or 2 medications. Only 4.5% were using more than 2 different medications. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of a family practice's patients need close surveillance of BP because of the prevalence of prehypertension. Despite the improvement in the management of hypertension, only 65% of hypertensive patients had achieved the recommended target BP. Family physicians could be treating their hypertensive patients more aggressively with medications; only 4.4% of patients were using more than 2 different antihypertensive medications, despite 35% not being at target. Hypertension surveillance and treatment to achieve target BP levels continue to be important issues in primary care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".