Magnitude and pattern of hypertension in the Niger Delta: a systematic review and meta-analysis of community-based studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emerging evidence found that health inequality in the Niger Delta region in Nigeria has continued to worsen due to epidemiological and environmental risks transitions. This study aims to provide an up-to-date review and the secular trends of hypertension prevalence in Niger Delta. METHODS: We systematically searched databases of MEDLINE, EMBASE, African index Medicus and African Journal online from inception to December 30, 2016 for population-based studies providing prevalence estimates of hypertension in the Niger Delta. Eligible studies were included in a random-effect meta-analysis of prevalence and secular trend. The review was reported according to MOOSE guideline. RESULTS: < 0.001. CONCLUSIONS: This study found evidence that hypertension is a major public health issue in the Niger Delta communities suggesting a positive relationship between socio-economic and lifestyle factors. Improved surveillance and care, as well as better management of the underlying risk factors, primarily undetected or uncontrolled high blood pressure, remains an important public health priority.
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 | 0.012 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".