Blood pressure control according to clinical practice guidelines is associated with decreased mortality and cardiovascular events among liver transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data for liver transplant recipients (LTRs) regarding the benefit of care concordant with clinical practice guidelines for management of blood pressure (BP) are sparse. This paper reports on clinician adherence with BP clinical practice guideline recommendations and whether BP control is associated with mortality and cardiovascular events (CVEs) among LTRs. We conducted a longitudinal cohort study of adult LTRs who survived to hospital discharge at a large tertiary care network between 2010 and 2016. The primary exposure was a BP of <140/<90 mm Hg within year 1 of LT. Among 602 LTRs (mean age 56.7 years, 64% men), 92% had hypertension and 38% had new onset hypertension. Less than 30% of LTRs achieved a BP of <140/<90 mm Hg over a mean of 43.2 months. In multivariable models, adjusted for key confounders, BP control post-LT compared with lack of control was associated with a significantly lower hazard of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39, 0.87) and of CVEs (HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.43, 0.97). The association between BP control of <140/<90 mm Hg with improved survival and decreased CVEs in LTRs suggests that efforts to improve clinician adherence to BP clinical practice recommendations should be intensified.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".