Blood pressure targets for hemodialysis patients: Aspirational or practical?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whereas there is strong relationship between high blood pressure and increased overall and cardiovascular mortality for the general population, observational studies in hemodialysis patients have reported a "U" shaped relationship between pre-hemodialysis blood pressure recordings and patient survival. Previous attempts to introduce pre and post-hemodialysis blood pressure targets were associated with an increased frequency of intra-dialytic hypotension, itself an independent risk factor for mortality. Conversely, meta-analyses of trials of antihypertensive medications in hemodialysis patients, reported survival benefit for those prescribed medication. More recently, further meta-analyses have suggested a reduced risk for cardiovascular mortality benefit with a systolic blood pressures (SBPs) of less than 140 mmHg, the absolute benefit, in terms of risk reduction was greatest in those with the highest vascular disease burden. Even though data from current observational studies and studies of antihypertensive medications would suggest that patient survival would be greater with pre-dialysis SBP should be less than 160 mmHg, there is no current data to propose specific blood pressure targets. Defining blood pressure targets can only be answered by adequately powered prospective randomized controlled trials comparing different targets. As the benefits of lowering blood pressure appear to be greatest for those with most vascular disease, then blood pressure targets may have to be adjusted on an individual risk basis, and future trials should therefore stratify patients according to vascular morbidity and have different targets for patients with differing degrees of pre-existing cardiovascular disease.
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 | 0.010 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".