Antihypertensive medication in frail older adults: A narrative review through a deprescribing lens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of review: The management of hypertension in frail older adults remains controversial, as these patients are underrepresented in clinical trials and practice guidelines. Overtreatment may cause harm while undertreatment may lead to greater risk of cardiovascular events. Our research aims to examine this controversy and provide guidance regarding deprescribing decisions in frail older adults. Results: Current evidence suggests that there may be minimal cardiovascular benefit and significant harm of antihypertensive medication in the frail older adult population. A minority of hypertension guidelines provide sufficient recommendations for frail older adults, and there are limited tools available to guide clinical decision-making. Conclusion: Randomized controlled trials and well-designed observational studies are needed to confirm the benefit-to-harm relationship of antihypertensive medication in frail older adults. Decision tools that comprehensively address antihypertensive deprescribing would be advantageous to help clinicians with hypertension management in this population. Clinicians should engage in shared decision-making with the patient and family to ensure that decisions regarding antihypertensive deprescribing best meet the needs of all involved.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".