Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schutte et al.1 describe a timely, ambitious and promising study of hypertension in South Africa. In this paper, the Hypertension in Africa Team describe baseline results in 1202 healthy volunteers (606 black and 596 white men and women) who were normotensive by clinic blood pressure readings and were aged 20–30 years during recruitment between 2013 and 2017. They also describe their plans for five-yearly follow-up visits, including detailed measurements of health behavior, cardiovascular profile and organ damage, and biological sampling for “omics” and biomarkers. This will allow the assessment of differences between black and white people with regard to genetic and other factors predisposing to hypertension. As reviewed recently,2 there is substantial evidence that black people of African origin are more likely to have hypertension resulting from the retention of salt and water, and greater sensitivity to the increased secretion of aldosterone. African-Americans are more likely to have hypertension, more likely to have their hypertension diagnosed, more likely to have it treated more intensively, but less likely to have it controlled. The observation that African-Americans born in the USA are nearly twice as likely to be hypertensive as foreign-born African-Americans supports the African diaspora hypothesis3—that there was a natural selection for a genetic predisposition to salt and water retention because of the very high mortality of slaves from vomiting, diarrhea and sweating during transport across the Atlantic, and then during the first few years of work on plantations in the southern USA.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| 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".