Identifying pediatric hypertension in observational data: comparing clinical and claims cohorts in real-world data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted retrospective public health surveillance using data from 2006 to 2016 in 7 integrated delivery systems from the US Food and Drug Administration's Sentinel System. We identified pediatric hypertensive patients by clinical and claims-based definitions and compared demographics, baseline profiles, and follow-up time profiles. Among 3 757 803 pediatric patients aged 3 to 17 years, we identified 781 722 children and 551 246 teens with at least 3 blood pressure measurements over 36 months. Of these, 70 315 children (9%) and 47 928 teens (8.7%) met the clinical definition for hypertension, and 22 465 (2.8%) children and 60 952 (11%) of teens met the clinical definition for elevated, nonhypertensive blood pressure. Of the 3.7 million patients, we identified 3246 children and 7293 teens with any claim for hypertension (claims definition). Evidence of hypertension claims among those meeting our clinical definition was poor; 2.2% and 7.3% of clinically hypertensive children and teens had corresponding claims for hypertension. Baseline profiles for patients with claims-based hypertension suggest greater severity of disease compared with clinical patients. Claims-based patients had higher rates of all-cause mortality during follow-up. Pediatric hypertension in claims-based data sources is under-captured but may serve as a marker for greater disease severity. Investigators should understand coding practices when selecting real-world data sources for pediatric hypertension work.
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 | 0.035 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".