Back

Screening for Probable Undiagnosed Hypertension in US Adults Using Interpretable Machine Learning: An NHANES 2017-2018 Study

Thakur, M.; Aacharya, S.; Tiwari, P.; Sah, R.; Yadav, P.; Yadav, D.; Thakur, B.

2026-06-25 cardiovascular medicine
10.64898/2026.06.23.26356178 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background Hypertension remains one of the most challenging healthcare problems in the community. It is a common, measurable, and treatable condition that is nonetheless responsible for millions of preventable deaths each year. Hypertension affects approximately 1.28 billion adults worldwide, yet fewer than half (46%) are aware of their condition. Undiagnosed hypertension is a critical public health gap, contributing to preventable cardiovascular morbidity through silent end-organ damage. Machine learning can enable community-level screening using routinely available, non-invasive data, without the requirement of laboratory investigations. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional ML study using the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2017-2018 cycle. Adults aged [≥]18 years were included; those with a self-reported prior hypertension diagnosis (n=1,930) were retained as negative controls. Probable undiagnosed hypertension was defined as mean blood pressure [≥]130/80 mmHg among participants reporting no prior hypertension diagnosis, consistent with the ACC/AHA 2017 threshold. Three classifiers: Logistic Regression (LR), Random Forest (RF), and Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) were trained on eight non-invasive predictor variables. Performance was assessed using AUC-ROC, sensitivity, specificity, and F1 score with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Stratified 5-fold cross-validation was applied. Results Of 9,254 NHANES 2017-2018 participants, 5,237 adults were included after exclusion criteria were applied; 1,072 (20.5%) had probable undiagnosed hypertension. LR achieved the highest test AUC of 0.611 (95% CI: 0.571-0.652), with sensitivity 0.535 (95% CI: 0.473-0.600) and specificity 0.594 (95% CI: 0.560-0.626). RF demonstrated near-absent sensitivity (0.047) despite adequate AUC (0.607), while XGBoost performed intermediately (AUC: 0.599; sensitivity: 0.279). Diabetes status, sex, and age were the most influential predictors by permutation feature importance. Conclusion ML classifiers trained on eight non-invasive variables demonstrated modest but consistent discrimination for identifying probable undiagnosed hypertension, supporting the feasibility of laboratory-free community screening. External validation in diverse populations is warranted before clinical implementation.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Hypertension
36 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
11.9%
2
Journal of Hypertension
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
3
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 22%
7.9%
4
Journal of the American Heart Association
140 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
7.9%
5
European Heart Journal - Digital Health
18 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.3%
6
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.3%
50% of probability mass above
7
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 16%
5.5%
8
PLOS Medicine
110 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.8%
9
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.7%
10
European Heart Journal
22 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
2.4%
11
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
12
Kidney360
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
13
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.7%
14
Journal of Clinical Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
15
Open Heart
21 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.4%
16
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.3%
17
The American Journal of Cardiology
17 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
18
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 51%
1.1%
19
American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology
36 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
20
Diagnostics
50 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
21
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.0%
22
BMC Nephrology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
JMIRx Med
32 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
24
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
25
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
26
Annals of Epidemiology
21 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
27
European Respiratory Journal
59 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
28
BMC Cardiovascular Disorders
18 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
29
Circulation
74 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
30
BioData Mining
22 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%