Regional and rural-urban patterns in the prevalence of diagnosed hypertension among older U.S. adults with diabetes, 2005–2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension prevalence among the overall US adult population has been relatively stable during the last two decades. However, whether this stabilization has occurred across rural-urban communities and across different geographic regions is unknown, particularly among older adults with diabetes who are likely to have concomitant cardiovascular risk factors. METHODS: This serial cross-sectional analysis used the 5% national sample of Medicare administrative claims data (n = 3,516,541) to examine temporal trends (2005-2017) in diagnosed hypertension among older adults with diabetes, across urban-rural communities and US census regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West). Joinpoint regression was used to obtain annual percent change (APC) in hypertension prevalence across rural-urban communities and geographic regions, and multivariable adjusted regression was used to assess associations between rural-urban communities and hypertension prevalence. RESULTS: The APC in the prevalence of hypertension was higher during 2005-2010, and there was a slowdown in the increase during 2011-2017 across all regions, with significant variations across rural-urban communities within each of the regions. In the regression analysis, in the adjusted model, older adults living in non-core (most rural) areas in the Midwest (PR = 0.988, 95% CI: 0.981-0.995) and West (PR = 0.935, 95% CI: 0.923-0.946) had lower hypertension prevalence than their regional counterparts living in large central metro areas. CONCLUSIONS: Although the magnitudes of these associations are small, differences in hypertension prevalence across rural-urban areas and geographic regions may have implications for targeted interventions to improve chronic disease prevention and 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".