4.5 Article

Evaluating the risk of hypertension using an artificial neural network method in rural residents over the age of 35 years in a Chinese area

期刊

HYPERTENSION RESEARCH
卷 33, 期 7, 页码 722-726

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hr.2010.73

关键词

prediction model; risk factors; rural

资金

  1. China '863' high-tech research and development [2006AA02Z347]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypertension (HTN) has been proven to be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. The purpose of the study was to examine risk factors for HTN and to develop a prediction model to estimate HTN risk for rural residents over the age of 35 years. This study was based on a cross-sectional survey of 3054 rural community residents (N=3054). Participants were divided into two groups: a training set (N1=2438) and a validation set (N2=616). The differences between the training set and validation set were not statistically significant. The predictors of HTN risk were identified from the training set using logistic regression analysis. Some risk factors were significantly associated with HTN, such as a high educational level (EL) (odds ratio (OR)=0.744), a predominantly sedentary job (OR=1.090), a positive family history of HTN (OR=1.614), being overweight (OR=1.525), dysarteriotony (OR=1.101), alcohol intake (OR=0.760), a salty diet (OR=1.146), more vegetable and fruit intake (OR=0.882), meat consumption (OR=0.787) and regular physical exercise (OR=0.866). We established the predictive models using logistic regression model (LRM) and artificial neural network (ANN). The accuracy of the models was compared by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) when the models were applied to the validation set. The ANN model (area under the curve (AUC)=0.900 +/- 0.014) proved better than the LRM (AUC 0.732 +/- 0.026) in terms of evaluating the HTN risk because it had a larger area under the ROC curve. Hypertension Research (2010) 33, 722-726; doi: 10.1038/hr.2010.73; published online 27 May 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据