Hypertension in people living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review describes what is known concerning the burden of hypertension among people living with HIV (PLHIV), and also addresses relevant topics with respect to its risk factors and clinical management. RECENT FINDINGS: Hypertension is highly prevalent in HIV-positive populations, and may be more common than in HIV-negative populations. Risk factors contributing to the development of hypertension in PLHIV include demographic factors, genetic predisposition, lifestyle, comorbidities such as obesity, antiretroviral therapy-related changes in body composition, and potentially also immunodeficiency, immune activation and inflammation, as well as effects from antiretroviral therapy itself. Clinical management of hypertension in PLHIV requires awareness for drug-drug interactions between antiretroviral drugs and antihypertensive drugs. Awareness, treatment, and control of hypertension in PLHIV is currently suboptimal and should be improved. SUMMARY: The burden of hypertension among PLHIV is high and its pathophysiology most likely multifactorial. Elucidating the exact pathophysiology of hypertension in PLHIV is vital as this may provide new targets to impact and improve clinical management. In the meantime, efforts should be made to improve hypertension management as per existing clinical guidelines in order to safeguard cardiovascular health and quality of life in PLHIV.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".