MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028934948 · doi:10.5770/cgj.23.429

Blood Pressure Targets for Older Patients—Do Advanced Age and Frailty Really Not Matter?

2020· article· en· W3028934948 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Amanda Giffin, Kenneth Madden, David B. Hogan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geriatrics Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDementiaIntensive care medicineBlood pressureGerontologyPediatricsDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2017, Hypertension Canada removed advanced age and frailty as considerations for caution when deciding on intensive therapy in their guidelines for the diagnosis, risk assessment, prevention, and treatment of hypertension in adults. Dementia is not mentioned. In this commentary, we review why advanced age and frailty were removed, and examine what is currently known about the relationship between hypertension and both incident and prevalent dementia. We make the case that the presence of frailty (especially when severe) and dementia should be considered when deciding on intensive therapy in future iterations of Hypertension Canada guidelines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.291
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geriatrics JournalSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207