BACK TO THE FUTURE: A NEW GUIDELINES PROCESS FOR HYPERTENSION CANADA AND HYPERTENSION AUSTRALIA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Guidelines have become too complex and unwieldy to be widely implemented, especially in primary care. Furthermore, a multidisciplinary approach which includes patients is needed. And, it doesn’t make sense for each country/organization to create their own guidelines – collaboration is needed. Objective: To outline a new framework for the Hypertension Canada and Hypertension Australia Guidelines.Design and method: We are led by co-chairs from each country and a steering group which includes patient partners, hypertension specialists, pharmacists, nurses, family physicians and methodologists. Results: The new collaborative guidelines approach includes 4 steps: Step 1: Primary Care Guidelines: Using the HEARTS framework, we are developing a very simple diagnosis and treatment algorithm that will apply to most patients in primary care. A robust and inclusive process will seek feedback on the guidelines from healthcare professionals. Step 2: Patient/Public Guidelines: Our patient partners are following methods put forward by the Guidelines International Network to develop public-facing guidelines to empower patients. Step 3: Priority-setting exercise to focus guideline topics: We have collated the topic areas from our previous guidelines and the ESH and ESC guidelines and are sending them to our members/interestholders to prioritize the most important topics for review/update. Step 4: “Living” Comprehensive Guidelines: We will conduct reviews of recent guidelines and conduct evidence syntheses for the identified priority topics. These will be published (and updated) on a rolling basis as they become ready, rather than waiting for a single, all-inclusive document. Steps 3 and 4 will occur yearly. Status: Our Primary Care and Patient/Public guidelines will be released in 2025. Priority setting has begun and Comprehensive Guidelines topics will begin to appear in late 2025. Conclusions: We are excited to embark on this new process, which is a balance of pragmatic and evidence-based, more discipline inclusive, and with 2 countries collaborating to improve harmonization of guidelines and avoid duplication of effort (and reduce costs).
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 | 0.239 | 0.277 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.009 |
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".