Epidemiology of Resistant Hypertension in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Resistant hypertension is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to estimate the prevalence of apparent treatment-resistant hypertension in Canadian adults and examine the characteristics of those affected. METHODS: A nationally representative cross-sectional study was conducted with the use of Canadian Health Measures Survey (2007-2017) data. The frequency of respondents with uncontrolled blood pressure despite 3 or more antihypertensive medications of different drug classes (and at least 1 agent being a diuretic), or treatment with 4 or more agents regardless of blood pressure, was determined. RESULTS: A total of 245,700 people were identified to have apparent treatment-resistant hypertension, representing 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.5%-6.2%) of adults treated for hypertension in Canada. Respondents who had uncontrolled blood pressure with 3 or more antihypertensive drugs were more likely women (55.8%, 95% CI 41.1%-70.4%), 70 years of age or older (45.3% 95% CI 32.8%-57.9%), and overweight or obese (84.2%, 95% CI 72.3%-96.1%). Respondents with apparent treatment-resistant hypertension also had a high likelihood of chronic kidney disease (36.0%, 95% CI 21.4%-50.6%), diabetes (35.2%, 95% CI 21.7%-48.7%), dyslipidemia (68.0%, 95% CI 55.2%-80.8%), and history of heart attack (9.9%, 95% CI 4.8%-15.1%) or stroke (7.1%, 95% CI 0-14.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Despite being prescribed at least 3 antihypertensive drugs, a considerable proportion of Canadians, especially women, have difficulty achieving blood pressure control, predisposing them to a higher risk of cardiovascular complications and death.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".