The blood pressure and hypertension experience among North American Indigenous populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension is becoming increasingly prevalent among western societies. However, different ethnic groups appear to be affected unequally. This systematic review sought to evaluate blood pressure and hypertension among North American Indigenous populations. Electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE and EMBASE) were searched and citations cross-referenced. Articles including blood pressure or hypertension among Indigenous populations specifically were included. A total of 1213 unique articles were identified, with 141 included in the final review. Hypertension rates ranged from 19.2% among Inuit/Alaskan natives to 33.9% among First Nations/American Indians, and have increased since pre1980. Overall, hypertension rates were lower among Indigenous populations compared with general populations (23.5 vs. 31.2%), although average blood pressures were similar (123.3/75.1 vs. 124.9/75.2 mmHg). Limited information regarding Indigenous children/youth identified 11.4% hypertension rates, with average blood pressures of 106.7/60.2 mmHg. These findings indicate that current rates of hypertension may actually be lower among Indigenous populations than the general population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".