MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1722754131

Quels chiffres tensionnels viser chez le diabétique

2013· article· fr· W1722754131 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jean-Pierre Vallée

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGynecologyMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cette nouvelle meta-analyse (canadienne) confirme des donnees connues : cibler une pression arterielle inferieure a 130/80 chez le diabetique ne diminue pas le risque de deces ou d’infarctus. Les auteurs ont identifie dans les bases de donnees electroniques, les bibliographies et les registres d’essais cliniques 5 essais randomises (sur pres de 4 000 citations) comparant des cibles tensionnelles chez 7 302 patients atteints de diabete de type 2 : ABCD-H (1991), ABCD-N (1991), HOT (1992), ABCD-2V (1998), et ACCORD-BP (2003) publies entre 2000 et 2010. Les 4 premiers comparaient diastolique ≤ 75-80 vs diastolique ≤ 90), le 5e systolique < 120 vs systolique < 140. Le traitement « intensifie » n’a pas ete associe a une diminution significative du risque relatif de deces (RR 0,76 ; 0,55-1,05) ou d’infarctus du myocarde (RR 0,93 ; 0,80-1,08). Il etait associe a une diminution petite en valeur absolue (– 0,01 ; – 0,02 a – 0,00) mais significative du risque d’AVC (RR 0,65 ; 0,48-0,86). Aucun essai ne rapportait de differences pour l’insuffisance renale chronique, un seul rapportait un ralentissement de la progression de la retinopathie diabetique. Les effets adverses graves (necessitant une hospitalisation, menacant la vie ou entrainant une incapacite permanente) etaient plus frequents dans le groupe « intensif » : 3,3 % vs 1,7 % ; p < 0,001, principalement hypotension (0,7 % vs 0,04 %), bradycardie ou arythmie (0,5 % vs 0,13 %) et hyperkaliemie (0,4 % vs 0,04 %), mais aussi : hypokaliemies, augmentation de la creatinine serique et baisse du debit de filtration glomerulaire. McBrien K, Rabi DM, Campbell N, Barnieh L, Clement F, Hemmelgarn BR et al. Intensive and Standard Blood Pressure Targets in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med. 2012 ;172(17):1296-1303. Que retenir pour notre pratique ? • Le rapport benefice/risque de l’intensification du traitement de l’hypertension arterielle chez le patient atteint de diabete de type 2 parait donc defavorable malgre la petite diminution du risque d’AVC, ce qui doit etre pris en compte dans les futures recommandations. • Ce n’est pas une information « nouvelle » : 2 autres metaanalyses, portant sur pres de 80 000 patients (sur des criteres de selection differents de ceux de McBrien et al.), avaient en 2011 des conclusions analogues… Mots cles : Diabete de type 2 ; Hypertension arterielle [Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2 ; Hypertension]

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.022
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiabetes Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→