Office management of elderly hypertensive patients. Focusing on cognition and function.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To review office management of elderly hypertensive patients and to focus on cognition and function both as ways to stratify who gets treated and as end points for treatment. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Relevant papers were identified through a MEDLINE search from January 1994 to March 2000, using the MeSH terms hypertension, aged, aged 80 and over, cognition, activities of daily living, therapeutics, hypotension orthostatic, and dementia. Many well conducted randomized controlled trials were found and are included. MAIN MESSAGE: Treatment of combined and systolic hypertension up to age 80 is clearly worthwhile; beyond age 85, other factors (chiefly cognitive and functional impairment) mitigate most routine recommendations. Successful treatment is individualized, taking into account comorbid conditions and their effect on cognition and function. Age is useful for thinking about groups, not individuals: as people age, risk of cognitive and functional impairment increases, but even very elderly people (> 85 years) with no impairment should be treated as younger patients are. Elderly people with signs of having a "brain at risk" should be managed with special vigilance. CONCLUSION: Good evidence supports treating elderly people, who are otherwise well and are cognitively and functionally intact, when their blood pressure is > 160 mm Hg systolic or > 105 mm Hg diastolic. There is insufficient evidence for carrying out routine recommendations for frail elderly people. Treatment of comorbid illnesses dictates choice of therapeutic agent.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".