Design and Rationale of the National Observational Multicentric Tunisian Registry of Hypertension: Protocol for Evaluating Hypertensive Patient Care in Clinical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study was designed to evaluate the care of hypertensive patients in daily clinical practice in public and private centers in all Tunisian regions. OBJECTIVE: This study will provide us an overview of hypertension (HTN) management in Tunisia and the degree of adherence of practitioners to international recommendations. METHODS: This is a national observational cross-sectional multicenter study that will include patients older than 18 years with HTN for a duration of 4 weeks, managed in the public sector from primary and secondary care centers as well as patients managed in the private sector. Every participating patient signed a consent form. The study will exclude patients undergoing dialysis. The parameters that will be evaluated are demographic and anthropometric data, lifestyle habits, blood pressure levels, lipid profiles, treatment, and adherence to treatment. The data are collected via the web interface in the Dacima Clinical Suite. RESULTS: The study began on April 15, 2019 and ended on May 15, 2019. During this period, we included 25,890 patients with HTN. Data collection involved 321 investigators from 24 Tunisian districts. The investigators were doctors working in the private and public sectors. CONCLUSIONS: Observational studies are extremely useful in improving the management of HTN in developing countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04013503; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04013503. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/21878.
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 | 0.088 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 0.008 |
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".