MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616006293 · doi:10.1097/fch.0000000000000154

Prevalence and Determinants of Hypertension and High Normal Blood Pressure Among Young Adult Saudi Females

2017· article· en· W2616006293 on OpenAlexaff
Maha A. Al‐Mohaissen, Qumasha Y. Al-Obaid, Wafa A. AlGhamdi, Haneen Al-Alyani, Sheima M. Dahman, Nora A. Al-Wahhabi, Noura M. Al-Awaji, Terry Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueFamily & Community Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health Outcomes
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureBody mass indexCross-sectional studyRisk factorProspective cohort studyInternal medicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to determine the prevalence of hypertension and high normal blood pressure and their risk factors among young adult Saudi females. A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in a women's university. A questionnaire evaluated the subjects' demographic data and risk factors for hypertension and the blood pressure, height, and weight were recorded. In all, 4.1% of the participants were hypertensive and 6.2% had high normal blood pressure. Significant predictors of hypertension/high normal blood pressure were increased body mass index, increased heart rate, walking fewer days per week, and dietary factors. Attention to these risk factors through educational programs is warranted to reduce disease burden in the community.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFamily & Community HealthSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207