Blood pressure management in stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Cerebrovascular disease is a common cause of death and disability worldwide. The current literature supports an association between blood pressure (BP) and patient outcome during acute stroke. This review will provide an overview of the evidence to guide BP management during acute stroke. RECENT FINDINGS: Hypotension and hypertension are correlated with poor outcome in acute ischemic stroke, but the effect of reducing or augmenting BP is unclear. In most cases, BP should be treated only when SBP is greater than 220 or greater than 180 in candidates for thrombolysis. There is a lack of evidence to support the choice of specific agents. Use of vasopressor drugs to treat hypotension in acute stroke should be limited to selective situations. In acute hemorrhagic stroke, SBP greater than 140 has been correlated with poor outcomes. Two recent studies report the safety and feasibility of early BP reduction in hemorrhagic stroke. SUMMARY: Both hypertension and hypotension are associated with worse outcomes during acute stroke; however, the optimal hemodynamic parameters are not clearly defined in this patient population. Despite active research, there is a lack of high-quality data guiding current BP management in stroke. Several trials currently underway may clarify the many existing questions on this topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".