Current guidelines and controversies in the diagnosis and therapy of hypertension in the elderly and very elderly — a review of international recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the World Health Organization (WHO) arterial hypertension remains the most important cause of death in the world. Due to ageing of the population and the proven importance of high blood pressure in older age, various expert groups dealing with hypertension worldwide have dedicated more and more separate recommendations to elderly (65–79 years of age) and very elderly patients ( > 80 years of age). The subject of this work is to present and compare current guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of hypertension developed for this demographic segment. Due to the global significance in shaping the views on hypertension, the following Englishlanguage guidelines have been used for comparative analyses in this work: 2017 ACC/AHA Guideline, 2018 ESC//ESH Guidelines, Hypertension Canada’s 2018 Guidelines, 2019 Hypertension in adults: diagnosis and management by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), 2016 Guideline for the diagnosis and management of hypertension in adults by National Heart Foundation of Australia. The comparisons have been made based on of blood pressure criteria, the threshold values for drug treatment initiation and the blood pressure target values. In summary, hypertension guidelines for the elderly and very elderly differ significantly, although similar trends in their recommendations are evident.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".