MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1607635296

Laboratory Testing in Newly Treated Elderly Hypertensives: A Population-Based Cohort Study

2007· article· en· W1607635296 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Finlay A. McAlister, Zhong‐Liang Chen, Karen Tu, Sumit R. Majumdar, Raj Padwal, Norman R.C. Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortInternal medicineConfidence intervalPopulationCohort studyRenal function
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Although a purported advantage of antihypertensive drug classes is a reduced need for laboratory testing, little is known about the frequency of laboratory monitoring of hypertensive patients in clinical practice and whether this differs across drug classes. Methods: This population-based cohort study used linked administrative databases in Ontario, Canada. All elderly residents of Ontario (age 66 and over) who were newly treated for uncomplicated hypertension between 1994 and 2002 were followed for 24 months or until they were admitted to hospital, died, or were no longer on their initially prescribed monotherapy. We examined the frequency and type of laboratory tests performed while patients were treated with antihypertensive monotherapy. Results: In a cohort of 164,413 patients, 39% were treated with thiazides and 46% were prescribed newer drug classes as initial therapy. At baseline, 96,534 patients (59%) did not have any laboratory testing done, and during 1,701,520 months of monotherapy (mean time on initial agent 10.3 months) only 79,985 (49%) had any tests done. Laboratory testing was significantly less frequent in patients prescribed drug classes than thiazides: the adjusted rate ratios for laboratory testing were 0.94 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.93–0.95) with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, 0.80 (95% CI 0.79–0.81) with calcium-channel blockers, and 0.79 (95% CI 0.76–0.82) with angiotensin-receptor blockers. However, the absolute increase in testing was small (16 extra electrolyte tests, 6 extra renal function tests, 4 extra glucose tests, and 6 fewer serum cholesterol tests per 100 patients every 6 months), such that the extra laboratory testing observed with thiazides resulted in an additional cost of only C$0.63 per patient every 6 months in comparison with the cost of the drug classes. Conclusion: Laboratory testing in clinical practice was significantly less frequent among patients prescribed drug classes than among those prescribed thiazides; however, laboratory monitoring was infrequent in this cohort of elderly patients with hypertension but without comorbidities, and the magnitude of differences between drug classes was small.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen medicineSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207