MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413139365 · doi:10.1161/hyp.0000000000000249

2025 AHA/ACC/AANP/AAPA/ABC/ACCP/ACPM/AGS/AMA/ASPC/NMA/PCNA/SGIM Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

2025· review· en· W4413139365 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Daniel W. Jones, Keith C. Ferdinand, Sandra J. Taler, Heather M. Johnson, Daichi Shimbo, Marwah Abdalla, Maria S. Altieri, Nisha Bansal, Natalie A. Bello, Adam P. Bress, Jocelyn Carter, Jordana B. Cohen, Karen J. Collins, Yvonne Commodore‐Mensah, Leslie L. Davis, Brent M. Egan, Sadiya S. Khan, Donald M. Lloyd‐Jones, Bernadette Mazurek Melnyk, Eva Mistry, Modele O. Ogunniyi, Stacey L. Schott, Sidney C. Smith, Amy W. Talbot, Wanpen Vongpatanasin, Karol E. Watson, Paul K. Whelton, Jeff D. Williamson

Bibliographic record

VenueHypertension · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPublic Health Agency of CanadaSociety of General Internal MedicineAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineBlood pressureCochrane LibraryMEDLINESpecialtyFamily medicineInternal medicinePediatricsMeta-analysisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: The "2025 AHA/ACC/AANP/AAPA/ABC/ACCP/ACPM/AGS/AMA/ASPC/NMA/PCNA/SGIM Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults" retires and replaces the "2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults." METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from December 2023 to June 2024 to identify clinical studies, reviews, and other evidence performed on human subjects that were published since February 2015 in English from MEDLINE (through PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other selected databases relevant to this guideline. STRUCTURE: The focus of this clinical practice guideline is to create a living, working document updating current knowledge in the field of high blood pressure aimed at all practicing primary care and specialty clinicians who manage patients with hypertension.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0180.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations194
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207