Frequency of laboratory testing and associated abnormalities in patients with hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines recommend several routine laboratory tests in patients diagnosed with hypertension. However, the rates of clinically relevant laboratory abnormalities are unknown. Therefore, we conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative and laboratory data of patients diagnosed with hypertension between April 2010 and March 2015 in Alberta, Canada. Laboratory investigations for renal function, serum electrolytes (sodium and potassium), low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, and diabetes (fasting blood glucose and hemoglobin A1c), measured within 1 year of diagnosis, were examined, and the frequency of abnormalities determined. A total of 225 296 cases of incident hypertension were identified. Of these, 74.3% received at least one of the four guideline-recommended laboratory tests, but only 42.3% received all four tests. Patients who received any testing, compared to subjects who did not, were on average older (median age 55.9 vs 51.2 years, P < .001) and had more comorbidity (14.5% vs 2.8% with a Charlson comorbidity index ≥ 3, P < .001). Laboratory abnormalities with the potential to affect clinical decision-making were more common among multi-comorbid patients. Patients with renal dysfunction (6.7% vs 11.6%, 26.3%, P < .001), electrolyte abnormalities (9.8% vs 12.6%, 20.5%, P < .001), and diabetes (13.4% vs 25.1% vs 38.8%, P < .001) were found in patients with Charlson scores of 0 vs 1-2 vs ≥3, respectively. Our study found most patients diagnosed with hypertension received some laboratory testing, but rates of laboratory testing and frequency of abnormalities varied by clinical context. Testing and abnormalities detected were both more common among older patients and patients with comorbidities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".