Lifestyle approaches to hypertension for prevention of stroke and vascular cognitive impairment: a realist review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Stroke and vascular cognitive impairment (VCI) are major global public health pandemics. The increased incidence of stroke and VCI is in part due to modifiable risk factors (MRFs), with hypertension (HTN) being the strongest single MRF. Even though the underlying causes of HTN are multifactorial, lifestyle choices (eg, poor diet, physical inactivity, alcohol consumption) are chief contributors. Lifestyle medicine (LSM) is a medical and evidence-based discipline that is a promising approach for preventing stroke and cognitive impairment, including VCI. The empirical evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large population-based studies has reported on the effectiveness of LSM interventions. However, the evaluation of such complex, social and behavioural interventions warrants more information to allow its successful implementation into innovative clinical care models. More importantly, we need to understand how such interventions work, who it works for and under what circumstances to successfully manage HTN and other MRFs (eg, hyperlipidaemia, smoking, alcohol use and diet). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This realist review will follow the Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Synthesis: Evolving Standards. The review will comprise four stages: (1) clarify the scope, (2) search for the evidence, (3) critically appraise primary studies and extract data focusing on the context, mechanism and outcome configuration and (4) synthesise evidence and draw conclusions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethics board approval is not required for this review. The primary output of this review will be an evidence-based programme theory for LSM interventions for the management of HTN and other MRFs to reduce the risk of stroke and VCI. Findings from this review will be disseminated at three levels: micro (eg, patients, caregivers, clinicians, non-research partners), meso (eg, public, national not-for-profit organisations, professional associations and centres) and macro (eg, policymakers and government partners). PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024511566.
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 | 0.061 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.090 | 0.015 |
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".