O que dizem as diretrizes brasileira, americana, europeia e canadense em relação às metas? What do Brazilian, American, European and Canadian guidelines say with regard to blood pressure targets?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMO O objetivo do tratamento anti-hipertensivo e reduzir a morbidade e a mortalidade cardiovascular. Para isso, o principal e reduzir os niveis de pressao arterial. Entretanto, a abordagem dos fatores de risco e o controle das condicoes clinicas associadas tambem sao necessarios para definir a meta de pressao arterial a ser atingida. De maneira geral, as duas metas de pressao arterial reconhecidas por todas as diretrizes sao abaixo de 140/90 mmHg para a populacao de hipertensos de baixo risco e abaixo de 130/80 mmHg para pacientes diabeticos ou com doenca renal. Por outro lado, outros subgrupos de hipertensos sao abordados de maneira diferente entre as diferentes diretrizes. Em contraste com algumas diretrizes, recentes estudos controlados randomizados e revisao sistematica indicam que uma reducao mais intensa da pressao arterial nao resulta na diminuicao do aparecimento de eventos cardiovasculares ou da mortalidade nos individuos hipertensos.
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 | 0.063 | 0.165 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".