Prevalencia e incidencia de hipertensión arterial en Perú: revisión sistemática y metaanálisis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: . To determine the prevalence and incidence of arterial hypertension, as well as the prevalence of previous diagnosis of arterial hypertension (self-reported) among the adult population of Peru. MATERIALS AND METHODS.: Systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiological studies available in LILACS, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Global Health. Studies were included if they followed a random sampling approach in adult population. Screening and assessment of manuscripts was carried out independently by two researchers. A random-effects meta-analysis was conducted to quantify the overall prevalence and incidence of hypertension. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias in the manuscripts. RESULTS.: A total of 903 papers were screened, and only 15 were included in the estimation of hypertension prevalence, 8 in the assessment of previous hypertension diagnosis, and 4 for incidence estimations. The pooled prevalence of hypertension was 22.0% (95% CI: 20.0% - 25.0%; I2=99.2%). This estimate was lower in national studies [20.0% (95% CI: 17.0% - 22.0%; I2=99.4%] than in sub-national studies [24.0% (95% CI: 17.0% - 30.0%; I2=99.2%]. The pooled prevalence of previous hypertension diagnosis was 51.0% (95% CI: 43.0% - 59.0%; I2=99.9%). The pooled incidence of hypertension was 4.2 (95% CI: 2.0 - 6.4; I2=98.6%) per 100 person-years. The included studies did not present high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS.: Our findings show that one in five Peruvians has hypertension, and that four new cases appear per 100 persons per year; in addition, only half of the subjects with hypertension are previously diagnosed.
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.
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 | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 it