The Novelty of the 2015 Guidelines of the Taiwan Society of Cardiology and the Taiwan Hypertension Society for the Management of Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".