MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412535394 · doi:10.1038/s41569-025-01187-2

European guidelines for hypertension in 2024: a comparison of key recommendations for clinical practice

2025· review· en· W4412535394 on OpenAlexaff
Lucas Lauder, Thomas Weber, Michael Böhm, Sofie Brouwers, Rosa María Bruno, Eva Gerdts, Reinhold Kreutz, Thomas F. Lüscher, Giuseppe Mancia, John W. McEvoy, Richard J. McManus, Mpiko Ntsekhe, Gianfranco Parati, Atul Pathak, Rosa de Pinho, Kazem Rahimi, Pantelis Sarafidis, Aletta E. Schutte, Bryan Williams, Rhian M. Touyz, Felix Mahfoud

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Reviews Cardiology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineKey (lock)Clinical PracticeIntensive care medicineMEDLINEFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0110.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.454
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.123 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature Reviews CardiologySame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207