IMPACT OF DIFFERENT GUIDELINES ON THE PREVALENCE OF HYPERTENSION IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the prevalence of hypertension (HTN) in youth according to the criteria of the European Society of Hypertension (ESH) (Lurbe, 2016), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) (Flynn, 2017), and the Canadian Guidelines (Rabi 2020). Design and method: Four thousand nine hundred and forty evaluations in 2957 Caucasians of both sexes (1459 females), of European origin, from 5 to 18 years of age (mean age 11.0 ±3.2) were included and grouped in 5-12 yr, 13-15 yr and 16-18 yr. Blood pressure (BP) was measured in the non-dominant arm with cuff and bladder size adjusted to upper-arm girth. The three measurements of each office visit were averaged for analysis. Subjects were qualified as hypertensive (SBP and/or DBP) based on the thresholds defined by ESH, AAP and Canadian guidelines and differences among them were calculated. Results: According to the ESH, Canadian and AAP criteria, the percentage of hypertensives was 6.2%, 6% and 9.9%, respectively. The percentages in boys were 7.2%, 8.2% and 12.3%, while in girls were 5.1%, 3.6% and 7.4%. According to age, between 5-12 yr the prevalence of HTN was 6.2%, 5.2% and 10%. In those with 13-15 yr, HTN ranged at 7.3%, 6.8% and 8.6%, while in those with 16-18 yr, HTN was observed in 1.6%, 9.2% and 13.2%. The graphic expression of the different prevalence is shown in the Figures. Significant differences were observed for the total and male prevalence between ESH and Canada with AAP (p<0.05). For girls, differences were observed among the 3 Guidelines. Conclusions: Overall, there are differences in the prevalence of HTN applying different Guidelines. Differences were largely dependent on age and sex.
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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".