MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lifestyle Changes and Blood Pressure Control: A Community‐Based Cross‐Sectional Survey (2006 Ontario Survey on the Prevalence and Control of Hypertension)

2009· article· en· W3151119698 on OpenAlexaffabout
George Fodor, N. H. McInnis, Eftyhia Helis, Penelope Turton, Frans H. H. Leenen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureCross-sectional studyLifestyle modificationAntihypertensive drugPhysical therapyPopulationDrug treatmentHypertension treatmentPharmacotherapyGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate lifestyle changes and their impact on hypertension control in a sample of hypertensive respondents in Ontario, Canada, diet, physical activity, and other nonpharmacologic measures were recorded using a structured questionnaire during the 2006 Ontario Survey on the Prevalence and Control of Hypertension. Responses were weighted to the total adult population of 7,996,653 in Ontario. The prevalence of hypertension was 21%; 42% of hypertensive persons received therapy with antihypertensive drugs and lifestyle changes, and 41% received therapy with drugs only. Blood pressure was controlled in 85% of respondents who used only drugs and in 78% of those who stated that they received therapy with combined drug treatment and lifestyle changes. Fewer than half of hypertensive respondents practiced lifestyle changes (in combination with drug treatment) for blood pressure control. Lifestyle measures in addition to medication use did not result in better control of hypertension compared to only medication use.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.834

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.151
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207