Hypertension prevalence and control in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, using both the American Heart Association and conventional thresholds (130/80 and 140/90 mm Hg, respectively). In this randomized cross-sectional study, two-stage cluster sampling was used to obtain a sample of 4515 individuals aged ≥20 years. Hypertension was defined by the use of antihypertensives in the last 2 weeks or a blood pressure at or above the thresholds of 140/90 and 130/80 mm Hg. The mean age of the participants was 41.1 ± 14.0 years and 54.5% were women. Hypertension prevalence was 25.6% (using 140/90 mm Hg) and 46.5% (using 130/80 mm Hg). Prevalence increased with age and below 50 years men were consistently more likely to be hypertensive. Among hypertensive participants, the rates of awareness, treatment, and control were 69.7%, 46.8%, and 24.0% (using 140/90 mm Hg) and 49.1%, 25.8%, and 6.4% (using 130/80 mm Hg, respectively). Men had lower rates of awareness, treatment, and control compared with women, with the most pronounced differences at younger ages. This study shows that awareness, treatment, and control rates in Ulaanbaatar are better than in most low- and middle-income countries but are still suboptimal. The largest "care gap" was in young men where a regulatory requirement for annual workplace blood pressure screening has the potential to enhance care. A major hypertension control program has just been initiated in Ulaanbaatar.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".