El SPRINT en la práctica médica: ¿es momento de modificar el manejo de la hipertensión arterial en Latinoamérica?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the feasibility of the implementation of SPRINT trial results, the need to rethink the clinical practice guidelines(CPG) for the management of arterial hypertension and associated costs with daily practice applicability. SPRINT is a clinical trial comparing systolic blood pressure control <120mmHg and <140mmHg over cardiovascular complications, generating a great worldwide impact followed by publication of several studies that addressed relevance, usefulness, applicability and controversial aspects of SPRINT from different perspectives. Achieving blood pressure goals is one of the most discussed issue in widely used hypertension CPG around the world and in Latin American. SPRINT has generated and will generate a great impact on CPG, being necessary the reassessment of blood pressure goals and inclusion in future CPG, as has been considered in 2016 Canadian guideline and will be considered in NICE guideline update scheduled for June. The SPRINT trial raises new evidence for the management of hypertension, useful in people over 50 years, from urban populations, with defined cardiovascular risk without associated comorbidities. The applicability of SPRINT in Latin America is limited by increased costs associated with hypertensive patients' integrated health care, low care coverage, and lack of integrated care programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".