MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970163879 · doi:10.1097/hco.0b013e3280210681

Use of calcium channel blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors after cardiac transplantation

2007· review· en· W1970163879 on OpenAlexaff
M.-A. Rockx, Majed Haddad

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Cardiology · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCalcium channelCoronary artery diseaseAngiotensin-converting enzymeCalcineurinDyslipidemiaDiabetes mellitusTransplantationInternal medicineHeart transplantationHeart failureCardiologyDiseasePharmacologyCalciumEndocrinologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes are very common problems following heart transplantation and may contribute to the development and progression of graft coronary artery disease. This article reviews current data on clinical use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers in patients who have had heart transplants. RECENT FINDINGS: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers are established therapy for patients with cardiovascular disease. Use of these medications correlates with decreasing cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. SUMMARY: After heart transplantation, hypertension associated with calcineurin inhibitors can be managed effectively with antihypertensive therapy, but it may require use of more than one antihypertensive agent. Calcium channel blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been associated with improved outcome measures in graft coronary artery disease.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.216
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in CardiologySame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207