SELF PERCEPTION AND SELF CARE IN TREATMENT OF ARTERIAL HYPERTENSION: SCOPING REVIEW
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research question: What is the panorama of the use of self-care and self-perception in the treatment of arterial hypertension? Is physical therapy incluid in this process?\n\nObjective: identify and map the caracteristics of the approach to the use of self-perception and self-care in the treatment of arterial hypertension and if there is the participation of physical therapy in this process.\n\nSearch strategy:\nP (population): hypertensive individuals\nC (concept): self care and self perception\nC (context): use of self-care and self-perception in the treatment of hypertensive individuals\n\nData bases: PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, CAPES Theses and Dissertations Portal, DART-Europe E-Theses Portal, Electronic Theses Online Service (EThOS), Scientific Open Access Repository of Portugal (RCAAP), Trove, National ETD Portal, Theses Canada.\n\nElegibility criteria: Texts available in full, in Portuguese, Spanish and English, research that presented the use or evaluation of self-care and self-perception in the treatment of patients with arterial hypertension.\n\nMesh Terms: self-care, self care, care, Self, self-perception, self perception, Self-Perceptions, Perception, Self, Perceptions, Self, Self Perceptions, self concept, hypertension, high blood pressure, blood pressure, high, blood pressures, High, high blood pressures.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.551 | 0.351 |
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 it