ArticleInternational journal of hypertension2026
Machine Learning Prediction of Incident Hypertension in Australian Men: Integrating Survey, Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Utilisation Data From the Ten to Men Cohort.
Article in International journal of hypertension, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Machine Learning Prediction of Incident Hypertension in Australian Men: Integrating Survey, Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Utilisation Data From the Ten to Men Cohort.International journal of hypertension · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hypertension is a leading modifiable contributor to cardiovascular disease. We developed and evaluated machine learning models to predict incident hypertension in Australian men using baseline survey data linked to pharmaceutical (PBS) and healthcare utilisation (MBS) administrative records from the Ten to Men cohort. Methods: Among 13,519 men free of hypertension at baseline (2014), incident hypertension over 10 years was ascertained from PBS antihypertensive dispensing. Twenty-five baseline features spanning sociodemographic, anthropometric, lifestyle, clinical and administrative domains were used to train logistic regression, random forest, gradient boosting and XGBoost models, evaluated by five-fold cross-validation with out-of-fold prediction. Discrimination, calibration and threshold-based operating characteristics were reported with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Incident hypertension occurred in 1310 men (9.7%). All algorithms achieved comparable discrimination (AUROC ≈ 0.77; XGBoost 0.771, 95% CI: 0.756-0.784), with no material advantage for flexible tree-based methods over regularised logistic regression. Age, administrative markers of healthcare engagement and BMI were the leading predictors, and a parsimonious six-variable model recovered almost all the discrimination of the full model. The model showed high negative predictive and low positive predictive values across decision thresholds, consistent with the 9.7% event rate. Incorporating measured blood pressure history from intervening waves increased apparent discrimination, but this gain was attributable to information contemporaneous with the outcome and is reported only as a concurrent surveillance benchmark. Conclusions: Routinely collected survey and administrative data can identify Australian men at low risk of incident hypertension with high negative predictive value, supporting population-level risk stratification rather than individual diagnosis. Predictive performance was driven by feature availability and quality rather than algorithm choice.
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.