Evidence for Age Bias Contributing to Therapeutic Inertia in Blood Pressure Management: A Secondary Analysis of SPRINT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite evidence supporting the cardiovascular and cognitive benefits of intensive blood pressure management, older adults have the lowest rates of blood pressure control. We determined the association between age and therapeutic inertia (TI) in SPRINT (Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial), and whether frailty, cognitive function, or gait speed moderate or mediate these associations. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of SPRINT of participant visits with blood pressure above randomized treatment goal. We categorized baseline age as <60, 60 to <70, 70 to <80, and ≥80 years and TI as no antihypertensive medication intensification per participant visit. Generalized estimating equations generated odds ratios for TI associated with age, stratified by treatment group based on nested models adjusted for baseline frailty index score (fit [frailty index, ≤0.10], less fit [0.10<frailty index≤0.21], and frail [0.21<frailty index]), cognitive function by Montreal cognitive assessment, and gait speed (participants ≥75 years of age), separately. Results: Participants 60 to <70, 70 to <80, and ≥80 years of age had a higher prevalence of TI in both treatment groups versus participants <60 years of age (standard: 59.7%, 60.5%, and 60.1% versus 56.0%; 29 527 participant visits; intensive: 55.1%, 57.2%, and 57.8% versus 53.8%; 47 129 participant visits). The adjusted odds ratios for TI comparing participants ≥80 versus <60 years of age were 1.32 (95% CI, 1.14–1.53) and 1.25 (95% CI, 1.11–1.41) in the standard and intensive treatment groups, respectively. Adjustment for frailty, cognitive function, or gait speed did not attenuate the association or demonstrate effect modification (all P interaction , >0.10). Conclusions: Older age is associated with greater TI independent of physical or cognitive function, implying age bias in hypertension management.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".