MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The impact of updated clinical blood pressure guidelines on hypertension prevalence among children and adolescents.

2023· article· en· W37079395 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aniyatul Nasofa, Muhadjir Effendi, Nurhadi Nurhadi

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Methods and Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryStatistics Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: To date, population estimates of hypertension prevalence among children and adolescents in Canada have been based on clinical guidelines in the National High Blood Pressure Education Program's 2004 Fourth Report on the Diagnosis, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents (NHBPEP 2004). In 2017, the American Academy of Pediatrics published updated guidelines in Clinical Practice Guideline for Screening and Management of High Blood Pressure in Children and Adolescents (AAP 2017), followed by Hypertension Canada in 2020 with its publication of Comprehensive Guidelines for the Prevention, Diagnosis, Risk Assessment, and Treatment of Hypertension in Adults and Children (HC 2020). This study compares national child and adolescent hypertension prevalence estimates based on NHBPEP 2004, AAP 2017 and HC 2020. Data and methods: Six cycles of data spanning 2007 to 2019 from the Canadian Health Measures Survey were used to compare blood pressure (BP) categories and the prevalence of hypertension by sex and age group under all sets of guidelines for children and adolescents aged 6 to 17. The impact of applying AAP 2017 across time and selected characteristics, the resulting reclassification into a higher BP category under AAP 2017, and differences in hypertension prevalence resulting from applying HC 2020 versus AAP 2017 were examined. Results: Prevalence of Stage 1 hypertension was higher among children and adolescents aged 6 to 17 under AAP 2017 and HC 2020 than under NHBPEP 2004. Overall hypertension prevalence was also higher, and obesity was a major factor associated with being reclassified into a higher BP category under AAP 2017. Interpretation: Implementation of AAP 2017 and HC 2020 is associated with significant changes in the epidemiology of hypertension. Understanding the impact of applying updated clinical guidelines may help inform population surveillance efforts to track hypertension prevalence among Canada's children and adolescents.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.044
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.551
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.044
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicEducational Methods and ImpactsFrench-language works237,207