World Stroke Organization and World Hypertension League position statement on hypertension control strategies in prevention and management of stroke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The goal of this consensus is to provide a comprehensive set of recommendations in regard to hypertension control strategies for the prevention and management of stroke. This document is intended for prehospital care providers, physicians, allied health professionals, and hospital administrators and healthcare policymakers. METHODS: Members of the writing group were representatives of the World Stroke Organization and World Hypertension League. The writing group reviewed articles searched from PubMed and Google Scholar using selected search strings. The document was sent to 12 peer reviewers. The writing group considered the feedback from peer reviewers and made revisions accordingly. Every member of the writing group gave their approval of the final document. RESULTS: This article details the various techniques for blood pressure (BP) measurement, BP classification, BP and stroke risk, antihypertensive drug therapy for the primary and secondary prevention of stroke, choice of antihypertensive drug therapy, optimal BP targets, non-drug approaches to the prevention of stroke through BP lowering, BP management separately for acute ischemic stroke and spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage, and the implementation of BP prevention, treatment, and control in the community. CONCLUSION: This article provides general recommendations based on currently available evidence to guide healthcare practitioners caring for adults with hypertension for the prevention and management of stroke. Future studies are needed to better define approaches to hypertension control in the community and high-risk groups.
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 | 0.059 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".