MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169255448 · doi:10.3329/cardio.v8i1.24771

Increasing Prevalence of Hypertension in Bangladesh: A review

2015· review· en· W2169255448 on OpenAlexaff
Kamrun Nahar Koly, Tuhin Biswas, Anwar Islam

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiovascular Journal · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOverweightBlood pressurePopulationNon-communicable diseaseEnvironmental healthPsychological interventionDiseaseObesityDemographyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertension is a major public health problem globally in both the developed and developing countries. In Bangladesh, approximately 20% of adult and 40–65% of elderly people suffer from hypertension. According to Non Communicable Disease risk factors survey, one third of the Bangladeshi population never measured their blood pressure. The prevalence of self reported hypertension was 12.5% (men 10.9% and women 13.9%). Many risk factors underlying hypertension have been identified including non- modifiable factors such as age, gender, genetic factors, and race, as well as modifiable factors including overweight, high sodium intake, and reduced physical activity. The aim of this review was to present the scenery of hypertension and as well as present the exponential trend of hypertension in Bangladesh. We included 9 studies for the review that met the inclusion criteria and study objectives. Analyses of exponential trend reveled an increase in hypertension prevalence among adult population at a rate of 0.04 (R=0.33) per year. This review studies have demonstrated that interventions aimed at changing these modifiable factors might contribute to prevent the development of hypertension.Cardiovasc. j. 2015; 8(1): 59-64

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.004
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.206 · 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.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiovascular JournalSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207