Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To describe aspects of prevalence and incidence of hypertension in Canada. RECENT FINDINGS: Three databases have been used to determine prevalence and incidence of hypertension in Canada. Estimates of burden of hypertension varied by methods of data collection. The prevalence amongst adults was 23% based on administrative data in 2007 (which rely on physician diagnosis, but captures all adults, including those living in institutions or long-term care facilities), 18% based on self-report in the Canadian Community Health Survey in 2007 and 19% based on physical measurements in community-dwelling adults in the Canadian Health Measures Survey in 2007-2009. In the absence of a large representative prospective cohort study, incidence in Canada can only be estimated using administrative data. SUMMARY: Representativeness and validity of these available national data are questionable for determining accurate prevalence and incidence of hypertension. The important selection criteria for these data limit their generalizability. Linkage of surveys, administrative data and electronic health records could provide rich data for determining a more accurate representation of hypertension in Canada.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".