MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072641809 · doi:10.1159/000381299

The Novelty of the 2015 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology and the Taiwan Hypertension Society for the Management of Hypertension

2015· review· en· W2072641809 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hao‐Min Cheng, Chern‐En Chiang, Chen‐Huan Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuePulse · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuidelineBlood pressureInternal medicineCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyIntensive care medicineSmoking cessationKidney diseaseCardiologyMyocardial infarctionAngina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence rate of hypertension in Asian countries grows faster than in other parts of the world, where stroke exceeds coronary heart disease in causing morbidities and mortalities. The optimal management of hypertension is therefore an especially important task in Asia. In a transparent and rigorous guideline development process, the most updated information available on the management of hypertension was summarized in the 2015 Taiwan Society of Cardiology (TSOC)/Taiwan Hypertension Society (TSH) hypertension guideline. In contradiction with the ESH/ESH joint hypertension guidelines and the 2014 Joint National Committee (JNC) report, this updated guideline suggests some different blood pressure (BP) targets. In brief, the BP target is 150/90 mm Hg for very elderly patients (≥ 80 years), 130/80 mm Hg for patients with diabetes, coronary heart disease, proteinuric chronic kidney disease or those receiving antithrombotics for stroke prevention, and 140/90 mm Hg for all the other hypertension patients with or without the aforementioned comorbidities. To facilitate the adherence to the guideline, the following was proposed: mnemonics for lifestyle modifications: S-ABCDE (Sodium restriction, Alcohol limitation, Body weight reduction, Cigarette smoking cessation, Diet adaptation, and Exercise adoption), treatment algorithm: PROCEED (Previous experience, Risk factors, Organ damage, Contraindications or unfavorable conditions, Expert's or doctor's judgment, Expenses or cost, and Delivery and compliance issue), and medication adjustment algorithm: AT GOALs (Adherence, Timing of administration, Greater doses, Other classes of drugs, Alternative combination or single-pill combination, and Lifestyle modification + Laboratory tests). In particular, the effort of translating the concept of central BP into clinical practice may stand out from all other hypertension guidelines. In summary, our guidelines may deliver useful information and guidance to clinicians in managing hypertensive patients, including the approach to a more accurate diagnosis, treatment and adjustment algorithm, and evidence-based recommendations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.311
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePulseSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207