USPSTF Recommendation Statement on Hypertension Screening in Adults—Where Do We Go From Here?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Compared with other modifiable risk factors, hypertension is associated with more target end-organ damage, cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, and disability-adjusted life-years lost in the United States. Out-of-office BP monitoring is also recommended for diagnostic confirmation before starting treatment. The USPSTF considered this recommendation to be a grade A, indicating there is high certainty that the net benefit of screening for hypertension is substantial. e recommendation from the 2021 USPSTF recommendation statement 4 was based on evidence from a systematic review by Guirguis-Blake et al 5 commissioned by the USPSTF to evaluate key questions related to the benefits and harms of screening for hypertension in adults, the accuracy of office BP measurement for initial screening, and the accuracy of various confirmatory BP measurement methods after an initial high office BP. Regarding benefits of hypertension screening, the systematic review by Guirguis-Blake et al 5 identified 1 good-quality community-based randomized clinical trial conducted in Canada examining the effectiveness of a 10-week multicomponent CVD health promotion program intervention with hypertension screening as a primary component on CVD outcomes (ie, the change in mean annual rate of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, or stroke in the year before compared with the year after intervention implementation) among residents 65 years or older. BP was measured by trained volunteers using a validated device. Compared with no intervention, the intervention led to a 9% reduction in hospitalizations per 1000 CVD events. The systematic review by Guirguis-Blake et al 5 also identified a few studies on the harms of hypertension screening. Data from these studies suggested minimal associations of hypertension screening with quality of life and psychological outcomes.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".