Chronic hypertension in pregnancy: synthesis of influential guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic hypertension in pregnancy accounts for a substantial proportion of maternal morbidity and mortality and is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, most of which can be mitigated by appropriate surveillance and management protocols. The aim of this study was to review and compare recommendations of published guidelines on this condition. Thus, a descriptive review of influential guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, the Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand, the International Society of Hypertension, the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy, the European Society of Cardiology, the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists on chronic hypertension in pregnancy was conducted. All guidelines agree on the definition and medical management, the need for more frequent antenatal care and fetal surveillance and the re-evaluation at 6-8 weeks postpartum. There is also a consensus that the administration of low-dose aspirin is required to prevent preeclampsia, although the optimal dosage remains controversial. No universal agreement has been spotted regarding optimal treatment blood pressure (BP) targets, need for treating mild-to-moderate hypertension and postnatal BP measurements. Additionally, while the necessity of antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulfate for preterm delivery is universally recommended, the appropriate timing of delivery is not clearly outlined. Hence, there is a need to adopt consistent practice protocols to optimally manage these pregnancies; i.e. timely detect and treat any potential complications and subsequently reduce the associated morbidity and mortality.
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 | 0.035 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".