Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2020 the US Surgeon General made a Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension on which we have already commented in the Journal.1 The current issue of the American Journal of Hypertension for March 2022 includes a Compendium on the US Surgeon General’s Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension comprising 5 articles. The Compendium is introduced by one of the Associate Editors of the Journal, Paul Muntner, who edited the Compendium, in which each of the 5 articles are described in more detail2 than here. The first of the Compendium’s articles is by Mayfield et al.3 and it deals on whether there will indeed be action in response to the call. The next article is by Colvin et al.4, which addresses how the US Surgeon General’s Call-to-Action may advance equity in blood pressure control. The following article by Tajeu et al.5 discusses cost-effectiveness of the Call-to-Action to Control Hypertension recommendations. In the article that follows, Commodore-Mensah et al.6 present the proceedings of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention workshop to control hypertension. In the final article of the Compendium, Wall et al.7 wonder how to enhance self-measured blood pressure monitoring in the U.S. This present issue’s original articles start with one by Krousel-Wood et al.8 who assessed the association between preference for immediate gratification, low medication adherence, and uncontrolled blood pressure in adults with hypertension. The authors conclude that adults with preference for immediate gratification have worse adherence. The low adherence partially mediated the association of high discount rate with uncontrolled blood pressure. The next original manuscript is an evaluation of cardiac health in the spontaneously hypertensive rat and its implications of evolutionary driven increases in concentric hypertrophy by Holjak et al.9 The authors questioned whether the hypertension-induce sequelae of heart failure in the SHR have remained stable after decades of inbreeding. The study established that there has been a cardiac-based phenotypic shift in the SHR model. It also suggests that concentric hypertrophy may be beneficial in hypertension-induced heart failure. The following article by Spronck et al.10 evaluates the predictive ability of pressure-corrected arterial stiffness indices in a comparison of pulse wave velocity (PWV) and cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) in 154 subjects with and without heart failure. The findings of this study showed that BP-corrected arterial stiffness measurements were not better predictors of heart failure-related hospital admission than conventional arterial stiffness metrics. They did not predict heart failure-related hospital admission independently of systolic BP and support PWV as the primary arterial stiffness parameter for outcome prediction. The final article in the present issue of the Journal is by Nicoli et al.11 These authors examined whether neurotensin was associated with risk of hypertension through measurement of its precursor, pro-neurotensin/neuromedin N (pro-NT/NMN) in the population of the REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) study. Circulating levels of pro-NT/NMN among the 614 subjects who developed hypertension compared to the 1078 subjects who did not in a subcohort with complete results over 10 years of follow-up showed that baseline pro-NT/NMN was not associated with incident hypertension.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.053 |
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".