MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of individual risk factors on the incidence of cardiovascular events in the treated hypertensive patients of the Hypertension Optimal Treatment Study

2001· article· en· W1970475964 on OpenAlexaff
Alberto Zanchetti, Lennart Hansson, Björn Dahlöf, Dag Elmfeldt, Sverre E. Kjeldsen, R. Kolloch, Pierre Larochelle, Gordon T. McInnes, Jean-Michel Mallion, Luís M. Ruilope, Hans Wedel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsHôtel-Dieu de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRisk factorBlood pressureHazard ratioInternal medicineProportional hazards modelMyocardial infarctionRelative riskIncidence (geometry)Stroke (engine)CreatinineConfidence intervalCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) Study has provided information about cardiovascular events in 18790 hypertensives, subjected to pronounced blood pressure (BP) lowering for a mean of 3.8 years. The HOT study data have subsequently been analysed after stratification of the patients according to global cardiovascular risk, and it has been found that, despite intensive blood pressure lowering in all risk strata, morbid event rates increased with increasing risk stratum. OBJECTIVES: Previously analysed global risk strata were based on combinations of risk factors. The analyses presented here were intended to provide information on the relative role that the presence of each individual factor may have in increasing cardiovascular risk, despite good BP control. METHODS: Risk ratios (RR) for patients with and those without a risk factor were calculated with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a Cox proportional hazard model, and adjusted for all variables except the one under examination. RESULTS: For all risk factors considered and for all types of event, RR were always greater than 1, indicating a greater risk in the presence, compared with that in the absence of each factor. The male gender was a statistically significant risk for cardiovascular (CV) events, CV and total mortality and particularly for myocardial infarction (MI); age > or = 65 years for CV events, stroke, CV and particularly total mortality; smoking for all events analysed, but particularly for total mortality (twice higher in smokers than in non-smokers); high serum cholesterol (> 6.8 mmol/l) for CV events, MI and CV mortality; high serum creatinine (> 155 micromol/l) for CV events, stroke, CV and total mortality; diabetes for CV events, stroke, total mortality and particularly CV mortality; and ischaemic heart disease for all events analysed. Adjusted RR were often close to or greater than 2. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the risk factors considered was found to be an important cause of residual risk, despite good BP control. These findings emphasize the importance of addressing other correctable risk factors, e.g. smoking, hypercholesterolaemia and diabetes, as well as rigorous control of blood pressure, and of initiating antihypertensive therapy before cardiovascular and renal damage becomes manifest.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations165
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207