Global Hypertension Guidelines: Are Central Haemodynamics Critical and Neglected
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypertension (HTN) is an elevated blood pressure (BP) compared to normative data and occurs in 30-50% of adults and is the number one risk of human death. While non-invasive brachial BP defines hypertension, physiologically BP is the product of the central haemodynamic (CH) variables of stroke volume (SV), heart rate (HR), cardiac output (CO) and systemic vascular resistance (SVR) or BP = (SV x HR) x SVR. Pathophysiologically HTN is the result of one or more elevated CH parameters and while global clinical guidelines recommend anti-hypertensive therapy to reduce CH BP monitoring is recommended to monitor therapeutic effectiveness. Significantly control of people diagnosed with HTN remains persistently dismal at <23% while CH are ignored. We reviewed Australian, Canadian, Chinese, European, Japanese, Singaporean, UK, US and International HTN guidelines. The focus of the guidelines on cardiovascular physiology, allied science and novel concepts of HTN management were assessed using proprietary word-count functions targeting BP and CH, and the results tabulated. A total of 695 pages and 478,537 words were published in the nine representative global HTN guidelines, with BP parameters mentioned 7,535 times (99.4%), and CH parameters mentioned 47 times (0.6%), while 4 of 9 (44%) guidelines omitted any mention of CH. All guidelines recommended BP definitions and BP-centric therapies, without mention of CH. The adoption of CH in HTN practice may improve our understanding of the aetiology of HTN and advance precision therapy in adults and children with this pandemic condition
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 | 0.012 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".