Overview of the 2025 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Blood Pressure Guideline: Perspective From Editors at the American Journal of Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2025 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation and Management of High Blood Pressure (BP) in Adults was published in August 2025 and comes at an important time.1 Blood pressure levels among US adults declined markedly from the 1970s, when the first US BP guidelines were published, through 2013-2014.2 However, data from the US National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) indicate that BP levels stopped declining, and the proportion of US adults with hypertension that had controlled BP did not increase over the last decade.3 In addition, there have been a number of studies with clinical practice implications conducted since the 2017 ACC/AHA BP guideline was published. As editors of the American Journal of Hypertension, we are committed to publishing science that provides data to clinicians, policy makers, and researchers that can improve health outcomes for individual patients, facilitate health systems in screening, detection, and management of high BP, and reduce the burden of hypertension and BP-related cardiovascular disease (CVD) in populations. Within this context, we review some key recommendations from the 2025 AHA/ACC BP guideline, additions and changes from the 2017 ACC/AHA BP guideline, and key evidence gaps noted by the guideline writing committee.
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 | 0.016 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".