On-treatment blood pressures of older hypertensive patients in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The therapeutic target level for the blood pressure (BP) on antihypertensive drug treatment in older hypertensive patients is still extensively debated. We assessed the achieved BP levels in older treated hypertensive patients in a representative sample of the population. DESIGN: During the 2006 Ontario Survey on the Prevalence and Control of Hypertension, BP (using the SPRINT protocol) and treatment data were collected in 2551 respondents from a random and representative sample of the adult (20-79 years) population. Responses are weighted to the Ontario hypertensive population of 1367 384, of which 684 928 were in the 60-79-year age range. RESULTS: Among 60-79-year-old individuals, using traditional definitions the prevalence of hypertension was 49%. Hypertension treatment rates were high (85%) as were control rates among treated hypertensive patients (85% for 60-69-year-old and 70% for 70-79-year-old patients). A total of 38% of older hypertensive patients were treated with a single antihypertensive drug. A total of 54% of these had a SBP less than 130 mmHg and 23% less than 120 mmHg. Of those treated with combination therapy, 75% had a SBP less than 130 mmHg, and 44% had a SBP less than 120 mmHg. For treated and controlled hypertensive patients, average SBP was 120 mmHg for the 60-69-year age groups, and 119 mmHg in the 70-79-year age groups. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that intensive BP control, now being considered for high-risk hypertensive patients based on results from SPRINT, was actually already being achieved ∼10 years ago in a large section of the general hypertensive population of Ontario, 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".