Blood pressure self-monitoring in pharmacies. Building on existing resources.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Family physicians, pharmacies, and public health authorities should work together to improve control of high blood pressure among Canadians. Building on existing community-based resources, they could help ensure the accuracy of readings and promote communication among health care providers about patients’ blood pressure. Hypertension affects about 22% of Canadian adults and is a modifiable risk factor for stroke, ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, renal failure, and peripheral vascular disease. The prevalence of hypertension increases with age; more than half of the men and women in Canada aged 65 to 74 have a mean systolic or a mean diastolic blood pressure greater than 140/90 mm Hg. Family physicians routinely detect and treat hypertension, but the “rule of halves” still applies in many practices: half the hypertensive patients are undiagnosed, half the diagnosed patients are untreated, and half the treated patients are uncontrolled. Cardiovascular diseases have the highest health care costs of all diseases. Blood pressure control is a cost-effective preventive strategy. If blood pressure control were successful among people 60 years and older, overall mortality could be reduced by 20%, and incidence of cardiovascular disease by 33%, stroke by 40%, and coronary artery disease by 15%. The 2001 Canadian Hypertension Recommendations (www.chs.md/index2.html) highlight the importance of assessing blood pressure for all adults at all appropriate visits to physicians’ offices. Self-measurement and 24-hour ambulatory measurement are appropriate for assessing officeinduced blood pressure elevation (“white coat” hypertension); self-measurement is considered a feasible option for improving patient compliance with prescribed treatments.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.016 |
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".