Diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in children and adolescents.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review the current recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension in children to provide education to practitioners. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Review of recent recommendations of the Task Force on Blood Pressure Control in Children and the current literature, specifically regarding ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in children. In general, search criteria were restricted to studies with a primary focus of blood pressure for subjects 18 years of age or less, focusing on important studies of the past 20 years. DATA SYNTHESIS: Optimal determination of blood pressure in children requires use of appropriate technique, particularly the use of an appropriately sized cuff, and then comparison with normal values based on age, sex and height. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring is a research tool that, in selected high risk patients, may facilitate detection of occult hypertension. Careful clinical assessment is the key tool for identifying secondary causes or a predisposition to primary hypertension, with laboratory testing reserved if a specific underlying cause is suspected. Management is directed at secondary causes, and general cardiovascular risk reduction is aimed at dietary modification, increased exercise and attainment or maintenance of ideal body weight. Institution of drug therapy depends on the degree of hypertension and the risk of future end-organ damage or cardiovascular disease. CONCLUSIONS: Hypertension is an under-recognized clinical entity in children. Studies are needed to define the mechanisms and magnitude of cardiovascular risk, the role of ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, and the efficacy and safety of drug therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".