Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, we have witnessed significant changes in blood pressure target values and drug intervention thresholds. The liveliness of the science is demonstrated by the fact that two waves have been dominated by opposing currents, partly generated by newer studies and partly by differences of opinion between experts in decision-making positions. The systolic targets of the current international guidelines range from an ultraradical <120 mmHg (KDIGO and Hypertension Canada 2020), through a strict, generalized <130 mmHg (ACC/AHA 2017, ESC Hypertension 2024), to an intermediate – 130–139 mmHg, lower, if tolerable, 120–129 mmHg (ESH 2023) –, and further through the liberal, generally <140 mmHg (NICE 2019/2022) to the ESC 2021 prevention guidelines of <160 mmHg as a target for patients with non-high risk. The guidelines also differ in that some have targets without a lower threshold (KDIGO, Hypertension Canada 2020, ACC/AHA 2017) and some have no diastolic target (KDIGO, Hypertension Canada 2020 and ESC 2021 prevention guidelines and partly ESC Hypertension 2024). In the two new European hypertension guidelines (ESH 2023 and ESC Hypertension 2024), the indication for the antihypertensive medication in the 130–139/85–89 mmHg blood pressure range (called high normal and elevated, respectively) has been more clearly defined: ESH 2023, in line with its tradition recommends the introduction of antihypertensive drugs for these cases in the presence of manifested cardiovascular disease, especially coronary artery disease (in the previous version of 2018 ESC/ESH this was only a matter for consideration), while the ESC Hypertension 2024 recommends this in a wide range of high-risk patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.387 | 0.221 |
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".