MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148644180 · doi:10.4021/jocmr2009.03.1228

Self-reported Hypertension on a Caribbean Island

2009· article· en· W2148644180 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cristóbal S. Berry-Cabán

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although current guidelines emphasize the importance of hypertension knowledge, little is known about accuracy of this knowledge, factors affecting accuracy and the relationship of self-reported hypertension with cardiovascular disease (CVD). METHODS: One hundred and forty seven subjects were asked to provide self-reported data on hypertension. RESULTS: These were correlated with levels of systolic and diastolic hypertension measures. Demographic characteristics were considered as determinants of awareness and accuracy. Women were more likely than men to be aware of their hypertension levels. However men were more likely to exercise, use salt, smoke and consume alcohol. Women were more likely to be hypertensive, nonsmokers, and moderate drinkers. Higher levels of self-reported hypertension were strongly associated with increased risk of CVD. Women that smoke, have untreated hypertension, or a sedentary lifestyle have a decrease in awareness of their hypertension levels. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported hypertension underestimates measured values, but is strongly related to CVD. Lack of awareness of elevated hypertension is associated with increased risk of CVD. KEYWORDS: Cardiovascular disease; Hypertension; Risk factors; Self-report; Caribbean.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.370
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine ResearchSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207