Effect of Multifactorial Intervention on Blood Pressure and Quality of Life in Elderly Patients with Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore the effect of multifactorial intervention on blood pressure and quality of life in elderly patients with hypertension. Methods A total of 360 elderly patients with hypertension from January to August2010,who took medical examination and had been established health archives,were selected using random sampling method,and were divided into study group( n = 180) and control group( n = 180). On the basis of regular antihypertensive drug treatment,the control group received conventional therapy visits with once a month,while the study group received multifactorial intervention with once a week. The values of blood pressure,Montreal cognitive assessment( MOCA)score and activity of daily Living scale( ADL) score before the intervention and after the intervention( 6 months after the intervention) in the two groups were compared. Results Compared with those in the same group before the intervention and control group after the intervention,the blood pressure value in study group was significantly lower( P 0. 05),and scores of MOCA and ADL were significantly higher( P 0. 05). Conclusion Multifactorial interventions may improve the antihypertensive effect and the quality of patients' life in elderly patients with hypertension.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".