Factors associated with hypertension control among older Canadians.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In Canada, hypertension control is significantly less likely in older women taking antihypertensive medication than in older men. This study examines factors that may explain some of the differences in hypertension control between women and men. DATA AND METHODS: The analysis is based on data collected for 2,111 adults aged 60 to 79 who were treated for hypertension in the first four cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey. Hypertension, treatment and control were estimated based on measured systolic and diastolic blood pressure and on the Drug Identification Numbers of antihypertensive medications. Risk factors included health behaviours, comorbidities and a family history of hypertension. Sex-specific logistic regression models examined associations between risk factors and hypertension control. RESULTS: The systolic blood pressure of women taking antihypertensive medication was higher than that of men, regardless of hypertension control. For women, older age and diabetes were significantly associated with poorer hypertension control, while older age, ethnicity, diabetes, no cardiovascular disease, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use were significant for men. DISCUSSION: Based on current blood pressure targets, women and men aged 60 to 79 taking antihypertensive medication in Canada continue to differ in control and factors associated with control. Further research to better understand the underlying cause of these associations may help reduce disparities in hypertension control rates between women and men in Canada.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".