Worldwide Trends in Prevalence, Mortality, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for Hypertensive Heart Disease From 1990 to 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertensive heart disease (HHD) is a major cause of global morbidity and mortality. Understanding its current burden among various countries and populations is crucial for formulating effective strategies for preventing and managing HHD. This study aimed to use the estimates from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017 to describe the prevalence, mortality, and disability-adjusted life years for HHD for 195 countries and territories from 1990 to 2017. Worldwide, the age-standardized prevalence rate of HHD in 2017 was 217.9 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 184.1–254.1) per 100 000 people, an increase of 7.4% (95% UI, 5.0–9.7) from 1990. The global age-standardized mortality and disability-adjusted life year rates of HHD were 12.3 (95% UI, 9.0–13.2) and 209.4 (95% UI, 160.5–226.3) per 100 000 people, a decrease of −19.3% (95% UI, −29.7 to −8.1) and −24.0% (95% UI, −31.0 to −13.7) from 1990, respectively. The global age-standardized prevalence rate of HHD was higher in females and increased with age. Between 1990 and 2017, Bolivia (51.3% [95% UI, 29.6–84.5]) and Maldives (32.3% [95% UI, 22.9–43.8]) showed the greatest increases in age-standardized prevalence rates. Generally, a negative association was found between the age-standardized disability-adjusted life year rates and Sociodemographic index at the regional and national levels. Our results suggest that HHD is a major public health challenge worldwide with an increasing prevalence rate over the past decades. Efforts to improve public awareness and management of high blood pressure and HHD, especially for vulnerable populations, were necessary.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".