Blood pressure management in acute intracerebral hemorrhage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Although treatment options are limited, a potential acute medical intervention is blood pressure (BP) reduction. The review will summarize the current evidence and remaining knowledge gaps with respect to acute BP management in acute ICH. RECENT FINDINGS: More than 3000 patients were enrolled in seven prospective randomized-controlled clinical trials assessing the safety and efficacy of intensive BP reduction (target <140-150 mmHg systolic) compared with current guideline-recommended BP target (<180 mmHg) in acute ICH. Overall, these trials demonstrated that intensive BP reduction is well tolerated and may be associated with a modest improvement in functional outcomes. There is still no conclusive evidence that aggressive BP reduction is associated with attenuation of hematoma growth or mortality rates. Delayed time to enrolment and difficulty in achieving intensive BP targets in a timely fashion without stringent antihypertensive protocols may partially account for the absence of proven benefit. SUMMARY: Recent trials have shown that BP lowering (<140 mmHg systolic) is well tolerated and may improve functional outcomes. Ongoing trials will provide insight into the overall benefit of early aggressive BP reduction in acute ICH.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".