ArticleJournal of the American Heart Association2023
Survey and Evaluation of Hypertension Machine Learning Research.
Article in Journal of the American Heart Association, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- A machine learning-based framework for predicting hypertension using serum hematological factors.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Critical Appraisal Tools for Evaluating Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Studies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Trends and Gaps in Digital Precision Hypertension Management: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Transforming Hypertension Diagnosis and Management in The Era of Artificial Intelligence: A 2023 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Workshop Report.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2025Review
- Antihypertensive Drug Recommendations for Reducing Arterial Stiffness in Patients With Hypertension: Machine Learning-Based Multicohort (RIGIPREV) Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- Transforming the cardiometabolic disease landscape: Multimodal AI-powered approaches in prevention and management.Cell metabolism · 2024Review
- Evaluating Machine Learning Stability in Predicting Depression and Anxiety Amidst Subjective Response Errors.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- 21st century critical care medicine: An overview.World journal of critical care medicine · 2024Review
- Combating hypertension beyond genome-wide association studies: Microbiome and artificial intelligence as opportunities for precision medicine.Cambridge prisms. Precision medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
25 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background Machine learning (ML) is pervasive in all fields of research, from automating tasks to complex decision-making. However, applications in different specialities are variable and generally limited. Like other conditions, the number of studies employing ML in hypertension research is growing rapidly. In this study, we aimed to survey hypertension research using ML, evaluate the reporting quality, and identify barriers to ML's potential to transform hypertension care. Methods and Results The Harmonious Understanding of Machine Learning Analytics Network survey questionnaire was applied to 63 hypertension-related ML research articles published between January 2019 and September 2021. The most common research topics were blood pressure prediction (38%), hypertension (22%), cardiovascular outcomes (6%), blood pressure variability (5%), treatment response (5%), and real-time blood pressure estimation (5%). The reporting quality of the articles was variable. Only 46% of articles described the study population or derivation cohort. Most articles (81%) reported at least 1 performance measure, but only 40% presented any measures of calibration. Compliance with ethics, patient privacy, and data security regulations were mentioned in 30 (48%) of the articles. Only 14% used geographically or temporally distinct validation data sets. Algorithmic bias was not addressed in any of the articles, with only 6 of them acknowledging risk of bias. Conclusions Recent ML research on hypertension is limited to exploratory research and has significant shortcomings in reporting quality, model validation, and algorithmic bias. Our analysis identifies areas for improvement that will help pave the way for the realization of the potential of ML in hypertension and facilitate its adoption.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.