MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Management of Hypertension for Primary Stroke Prevention: A Proposed Approach

2011· review· en· W1995441318 on OpenAlexaff
Mukul Sharma, Antoine M. Hakim

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Stroke · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationUniversity of OttawaOntario Stroke NetworkOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStroke (engine)Blood pressureCompliance (psychology)Intensive care medicineRisk factorPrimary preventionDementiaPhysical therapyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of hypertension in society is high and increasing. Untreated hypertension results in stroke, dementia, and damage to major organs. This article reviews the risks that hypertension causes and the issues now generally accepted as playing a role in the low level of hypertension control. These include lack of public awareness of the significance of elevated blood pressure, lack of impetus to measure blood pressure, lack of sites to perform the measurements, occasional therapeutic inertia on the part of the medical community, and poor compliance with treatment on the part of affected individuals. Innovative measures that may result in improved management of this risk factor are discussed. These include ubiquitous blood pressure measurement sites, expanding therapeutic potential by involving allied health professionals, and offering rewards for treatment and for compliance. The article also emphasises that the ideal blood pressure target for the primary prevention of stroke remains unclear.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.121
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of StrokeSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207