The more individualised the blood pressure, the better
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension with high global prevalence is the main risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and death. It is known from observational studies in patients without other risk factors that there is a continuous and linear increase in cardiovascular risk associated with pressure elevations from 115 and 75 mmHg for systolic and diastolic blood pressures (BPs), respectively (1). However, the ideal target for pressure control remains undetermined. In addition, there is no evidence from large population studies about the real benefit of strict BP control (2-4). Thus, the therapeutic target for systolic and diastolic pressure in under 60-year-old individuals remains hypothetical. However, based on the opinion of experts, hypertension guidelines recommend target values of less than 140/90 mmHg (5-10). With respect to the elderly, most guidelines maintain the target of 140/90 mmHg, with the exception of the Egyptian and American guidelines that recommend 150/90 mmHg (11,12) and the Canadian high BP education program which advocates a systolic blood pressure (SBP) 80 years (13).
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".