Income inequality and high blood pressure in Colombia: a multilevel analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this research was to examine the association between income inequality and high blood pressure in Colombia. Using a nationally representative Colombian sample of adults, and data from departments and municipalities, we fit sex-stratified linear and logistic multilevel models with blood pressure as a continuous and binary variable, respectively. In adjusted models, women living in departments with the highest quintile of income inequality in 1997 had higher systolic blood pressure than their counterparts living in the lowest quintile of income inequality (mean difference 4.42mmHg; 95%CI: 1.46, 7.39). Women living in departments that were at the fourth and fifth quintile of income inequality in 1994 were more likely to have hypertension than those living in departments at the first quintile in the same year (OR: 1.56 and 1.48, respectively). For men, no associations of income inequality with either systolic blood pressure or hypertension were observed. Our findings are consistent with the hypothesis that income inequality is associated with increased risk of high blood pressure for women. Future studies to analyze pathways linking income inequality to high blood pressure in Colombia are needed.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".