Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,378 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Hypertension Management results contain 30 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 4.9% saturation with 271 hits. Analysis detected 2,768 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,512 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠13% (14,462 of 16,562 topics). This Hypertension Management is better (less manipulative) than 87.30% of the peer group.
Hypertension Management
Topic details
Total words: 5,512
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

13% percentile
025507510012.7% percentile
1.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles5.5K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 3.1%3.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.8%3.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 0.7%0.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.7%3.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.6%0.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.1%2.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 4.2%4.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.5%3.5%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.8%0.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 3.1%3.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Framing Effect: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.4%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Indoctrination: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 0.0%Bandwagon: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.9%Appeal to Nature: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 0.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.3%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos