Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article is devoted to the consideration of hypertensive older patients management with accent on pharmacological treatment. For justification of the choice of antihypertensive drugs on the principles of the evidence-based medicine the results of a randomized controlled clinical trials with inclusion of the old and older hypertensive patients are shown. Асcording to published systematic reviews and meta-analysis in comparative aspects are given the effects of different antihypertensive drugs related to their influence on cardiovascular events in this category of patients. Recommendations of rational pharmacotherapy of hypertension relevant to age-specific features of patients are taken with variant positions according to suggestions of leading experts and international organizations – the European Society of Cardiology; the European Society of Hypertension; American Society of Hypertension; the European Society of Hypertension-European Union Geriatric Medicine Society Working Group on the Management of Hypertension in Very Old, Frail Subjects; Canadian Hypertension Education Program; the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians; National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. The tactic of treatment of geriatric patients with hypertension is summarized.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".