Systematic Review of Hypertension and Diabetes Burden, Risk Factors, and Interventions for Prevention and Control in Malawi: The NCD BRITE Consortium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies have found an increasing burden of noncommunicable diseases in sub-Saharan Africa. A compressive search of PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and the World Health Organization Global Health Library databases was undertaken to identify studies reporting on the prevalence, risk factors, and interventions for hypertension and diabetes in Malawi. The findings from 23 included studies revealed a high burden of hypertension and diabetes in Malawi, with estimates ranging from 15.8% to 32.9% and from 2.4% to 5.6%, respectively. Associated risk factors included old age, tobacco smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, obesity, physical inactivity, high salt and sugar intake, low fruit and vegetable intake, high body mass index, and high waist-to-hip ratio. Certain antiretroviral therapy regimens were also associated with increased diabetes and hypertension risk in human immunodeficiency virus patient populations. Nationwide, the quality of clinical care was generally limited and demonstrated a need for innovative and targeted interventions to prevent, control, and treat noncommunicable diseases in Malawi.
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 | 0.008 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".