MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1524252108

The 2000 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension: Part one--therapy.

2001· article· en· W1524252108 on OpenAlexaffabout
Finlay A. McAlister, Milton I Levine, Kelly B. Zarnke, Norm R.C. Campbell, R. Lewanczuk, Frans H. H. Leenen, Simon W. Rabkin, Jim Wright, Jon Stone, Ross D. Feldman, Marcel Lebel, George Honos, George Fodor, Earle F. Burgess, Sheldon W. Tobe, Pavel Hamet, Robert J. Herman, J. Irvine, Bruce F. Culleton, Robert J. Petrella, Rhian M. Touyz

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureIntensive care medicineAngiotensin Receptor BlockersRandomized controlled trialPharmacotherapyLower blood pressureMEDLINEInternal medicineAngiotensin-converting enzyme
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To provide updated, evidence-based recommendations for the therapy of hypertension in adults. OPTIONS: For patients with hypertension, there are a number of lifestyle manoeuvres and antihypertensive agents that may control blood pressure. Randomized trials evaluating first- line therapy with thiazides, beta-adrenergic antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, alpha-blockers, centrally acting agents or angiotensin II receptor antagonists were reviewed. OUTCOMES: The health outcomes considered were changes in blood pressure, cardiovascular morbidity, and cardiovascular and/or all-cause mortality rates. Economic outcomes were not considered due to insufficient evidence. EVIDENCE: Medline searches were conducted from the period of the last revision of the Canadian Recommendations for the Management of Hypertension (May 1998 to October 2000). Reference lists were scanned, experts were polled, and the personal files of the subgroup members and authors were used to identify other studies. All relevant articles were reviewed and appraised, using prespecified levels of evidence, by content experts and methodological experts. VALUES: A high value was placed on the avoidance of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Various lifestyle manoeuvres and antihypertensive agents reduce the blood pressure of patients with sustained hypertension. In certain settings, and for specific classes of drugs, blood pressure lowering has been associated with reduced cardiovascular morbidity and/or mortality. RECOMMENDATIONS: The present document contains detailed recommendations pertaining to all aspects of the therapy of patients with hypertension, including lifestyle modifications proven to lower blood pressure, treatment thresholds, target blood pressures, choice of agents in various settings and strategies to enhance adherence. Lower thresholds for blood pressure treatment are advocated for people with other cardiovascular risk factors or established hypertensive target organ damage. Implicit in the recommendations for therapy is the principle that treatment should be individualized for each patient and the choice of agent should be dictated by coexistent conditions. For the treatment of uncomplicated essential hypertension, thiazides, beta-adrenergic antagonists, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or calcium channel blockers may be appropriate, depending on individual circumstances. VALIDATION: All recommendations were graded according to strength of the evidence and voted on by the Canadian Hypertension Recommendations Working Group. Only those recommendations achieving high levels of consensus are reported here. These guidelines will be updated annually.

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)0.030
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0070.002
Research integrity0.0070.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.008

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 head0.137
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.115 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations35
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→French-language works237,207→