How the Latest Guidelines Are Changing the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Landscape of Arterial Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arterial hypertension (HTN) represents the major cardiovascular risk factor and still represents a global health issue. In the last two years, three international societies published the new guidelines for the treatment of HTN (European Society of Cardiology, 2025; European Society of Hypertension, 2023; and American College of Cardiology in collaboration with American Heart Association, 2025), with many novelties which have been the object of many discussions among experts. The increased stress on screening programs, the new lower targets to reach by medical treatment, and the new strategies for resistant hypertension have raised some doubt on the feasibility of these recommendations in clinical practice. In this perspective document, the authors highlight and discuss the novelties and potential pros and cons of the new international recommendations for the treatment of arterial HTN.
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 | 0.037 | 0.136 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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.
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".