Pharmacological interventions for essential hypertension in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: Primary Objectives To determine dose related effects of different classes of antihypertensive medications as compared to placebo on systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure in children with essential/primary hypertension. The different classes of antihypertensive medications include diuretics, calcium channel blockers, beta‐blockers, alfa‐blockers, alfa and beta‐blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), vasodilators etc. Secondary Objectives To determine effects of monotherapy with one class of antihypertensive medications as compared to monotherapy with drugs from other antihypertensive class on systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure in children with essential/primary hypertension. To determine effects of combination therapy of antihypertensive medications as compared to placebo or monotherapy of the drugs included in the combination therapy on systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure in children with essential/primary hypertension. To determine and compare effects of drugs within the same antihypertensive drug class on systolic and/or diastolic blood pressure in children with essential/primary hypertension. To determine effects of different classes of antihypertensive medications on target end organ disease such as left ventricular hypertrophy, cardiac function, nephropathy and retinopathy. To determine withdrawals due to adverse events. To determine adverse biochemical effects of antihypertensive drug therapy on serum potassium, uric acid, creatinine, glucose and lipid profile. To determine the adherence of different antihypertensive medications among children with primary hypertension by pill count, self report or any other method used in a trial.
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 | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.007 |
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".