Clinical Research Epidemiology of Hypertension in Canada: An Update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: High blood pressure (BP) is the leading cause of death and disability in the world. The objective of this analysis was to perform a detailed update of the epidemiology of hypertension in Canada. Methods: Five population-based data sources were analyzed. We used the Canadian Health Measures Survey to determine the latest directly measured prevalence, awareness, and control estimates (2012-2013); the National Population Health Survey, and Canadian Community Health Survey to assess crude and age-standardized self-reported prevalence (1994-2013); the Canadian Chronic Disease Surveillance System to assess administrative dataeascertained prevalence and mortality trends (1998-2010); and Intercontinental Medical Statistics Health data to examine antihypertensive drugeprescribing trends and costs (2007-2014). Results: In 2012-2013, the prevalence of hypertension (defined as drug treatment for high BP or BP � 140/90 mm Hg) in Canadian adults was 22.6%, and the proportion of disease controlled was 68.1%. In Canadians with diabetes, the prevalence (defined as drug treatment
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.051 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".