Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We will discuss the treatment guidelines from the British Hypertension Society, Canadian Medical Association, Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure, the sixth report, and the World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension. Our emphasis will be on blood pressure thresholds, goals of therapy, non-pharmacologic interventions, choice of first-line agents in uncomplicated patients, individualized therapeutic choices, adjunctive therapy, and future considerations. DATA IDENTIFICATION: Specific recommendations in international guidelines regarding antihypertensive therapy, that are written in English, easily accessible (i.e., found on the World Wide Web), and current (published in 1997 or later). CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed hypertension guidelines strongly favor lifestyle modifications in all patients diagnosed with hypertension, and a trial of lifestyle modification for a specified time period prior to initiating drug therapy is advocated. Pharmacologic therapy should be based on the patient profile: presence of major cardiovascular risk factors, cardiovascular disease, target-organ damage, and concomitant medical conditions, thus allowing for the tailoring of antihypertensive therapy to the individual patient. Thiazide diuretics are the most commonly recommended antihypertensive drug class, based on numerous outcome trials. Finally, new strategies such as low-dose combination therapy are recommended as initial treatment in some patients.
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 | 0.033 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.012 |
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".