MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288752043 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-16904-x

Development and validation of a hypertension risk prediction model and construction of a risk score in a Canadian population

2022· article· en· W4288752043 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexander A. C. Leung, Khokan C. Sikdar, Maeve O’Beirne, Hude Quan, Tanvir Chowdhury Turin

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health ServicesHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth CanadaAlberta Cancer FoundationPartenariat Canadien Contre Le CancerAlberta Health Services
KeywordsMedicinePopulationFramingham Risk ScoreProportional hazards modelBody mass indexHazard ratioCohortStatisticIncidence (geometry)StatisticsInternal medicineRisk assessmentConfidence intervalDemographyMathematicsDiseaseComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Identifying high-risk individuals for targeted intervention may prevent or delay hypertension onset. We developed a hypertension risk prediction model and subsequent risk sore among the Canadian population using measures readily available in a primary care setting. A Canadian cohort of 18,322 participants aged 35-69 years without hypertension at baseline was followed for hypertension incidence, and 625 new hypertension cases were reported. At a 2:1 ratio, the sample was randomly divided into derivation and validation sets. In the derivation sample, a Cox proportional hazard model was used to develop the model, and the model's performance was evaluated in the validation sample. Finally, a risk score table was created incorporating regression coefficients from the model. The multivariable Cox model identified age, body mass index, systolic blood pressure, diabetes, total physical activity time, and cardiovascular disease as significant risk factors (p < 0.05) of hypertension incidence. The variable sex was forced to enter the final model. Some interaction terms were identified as significant but were excluded due to their lack of incremental predictive capacity. Our model showed good discrimination (Harrel's C-statistic 0.77) and calibration (Grønnesby and Borgan test, [Formula: see text] statistic = 8.75, p = 0.07; calibration slope 1.006). A point-based score for the risks of developing hypertension was presented after 2-, 3-, 5-, and 6 years of observation. This simple, practical prediction score can reliably identify Canadian adults at high risk of developing incident hypertension in the primary care setting and facilitate discussions on modifying this risk most effectively.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207