A novel process for updating recommendations for managing hypertension: rationale and methods.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are numerous hypertension consensus recommendations intended for practising physicians. However, recommendations in their current format have limited impact on improving hypertension control. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A group of national societies, headed by the Canadian Hypertension Society, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, the Canadian Coalition for High Blood Pressure Prevention and Control, and Health Canada has developed strategies to maintain annually updated recommendations for hypertension management and to provide greater opportunities for their implementation into clinical practice. The process is overseen by a steering committee. Subcommittees have been formed for each of a list of topics seen as important to the control of hypertension. The subcommittees, with the aid of a central librarian, conduct annual literature reviews in accordance with Cochrane Collaboration strategies. Modified existing and new recommendations are forwarded to a group with expertise in clinical epidemiology. Grades of evidence are assigned to each recommendation. Revised recommendations based on the above process will be presented annually at the conjoint Canadian Hypertension Society/Canadian Cardiovascular Congress meeting. Under the leadership of the Cardiovascular Disease Division of the Laboratory Centre for Disease Control, Health Canada, a committee has been charged with the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: The improvements of the current process over previous national hypertension recommendations are four-fold. First, the recommendations will be updated annually. Second, the methodology has been improved. Third, the grading system can be used in the evaluation of complex study designs. Finally, the implementation process is extended. The authors are optimistic that these changes will contribute to the improvement of hypertension control in the Canadian population.
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 | 0.453 | 0.619 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".