Prevalence of and factors associated with hypertension according to JNC 7 and ACC/AHA 2017 guidelines in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most studies either followed Joint National Committee 7 (JNC 7) or World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension (WHO-ISH) guidelines to ascertain the prevalence of hypertension among Bangladeshi adults. The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) revised the definition of hypertension in 2017, which has significant public health importance. In Bangladesh, the new guideline has resulted changes in prevalence and risk factors for hypertension compared to the JNC7 guideline. This study used data from the most recent round (2017-2018) of the Bangladesh Demographic and Health Survey (BDHS). According to the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline, the participants were categorized as hypertensive if they had blood pressure (BP) ≥ 130/80 mmHg, but it was ≥ 140/90 mmHg in JNC 7 guideline. A total of 11,959 participants were involved in the analysis. The median (IQR) age of the respondents was 34.0 (18.0-95.0) years. The prevalence of hypertension was 24.0% according to the JNC 7 guideline, which was 50.5% according to the 2017 ACC/AHA guideline. Participants who were overweight and obese, aged, member of affluent households, Rangpur and Rajshahi division inhabitants had significantly higher odds of being hypertensive according to both guidelines. The new guideline suggests that half of the adult population in Bangladesh is hypertensive when measured according to the new guideline, urging the policymakers and public health practitioners to take immediate action to address the already established modifiable risk factors.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".