Why in 2016 are patients with hypertension not 100% controlled? A call to action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective is to consider the problem of high blood pressure (BP), a leading global risk factor, associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Despite the availability of treatment guidelines and a wide range of therapies, BP control is suboptimal in many countries. Recent data indicate that only around 40% of patients manage to achieve an adequate level of BP control. A group of international experts in the field of hypertension met in 2008 to consider this problem. The resulting white paper delivered an urgent call to action and identified six key issues for improving BP control. In 2015, a working group of investigators spontaneously undertook an action with the primary aim of considering the current hypertension management situation in Europe, to discuss whether the situation had changed since 2008 and to determine what can be learnt from the projects in other continents, such as the Canadian Hypertension Education Program, which has shown that higher levels of BP control can be achieved across a general population. The working group identified the main challenges affecting the improvement of BP control today and suggests five key actions: identify the BP treatment target of less than 140/90 mmHg for the majority of patients, simplify treatment strategies and encourage pill reduction, decrease therapeutic inertia, improve patient empowerment, and involve healthcare systems and reduce the prevailing focus on drug costs in many healthcare systems. Implementing key actions identified by the working group may help to improve achievement of better BP control across Europe.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".