Clinical Research The Impact of Cardiovascular Risk-Factor Profiles on Blood Pressure Control Rates in Adults From Canada and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: It is unclear whether blood pressure control varies across the spectrum of atherosclerotic risk. Methods: We used data from nonpregnant adults who had fasted laboratory samples drawn for the 2007-2009 cycle of the Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) or the 2005-2008 US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). Results: The 1692 CHMS subjects and 3541 NHANES participants were demographically similar (aged a mean of 45 years), although NHANES participants exhibited higher obesity rates (33.8% vs 22.2%, P < 0.001). Over 80% of CHMS and NHANES subjects with hypertension had at least 1 other cardiovascular risk factor. As the number of atherosclerotic risk factors increased, hypertension prevalence increased, but blood pressure control rates improved (from 48% among hypertensives with no other risk factors in CHMS to 77% RESUME
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".