Antihypertensive Drug Therapy in Saskatchewan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The benefits of continuous treatment of hypertension have been extensively documented in randomized controlled trials. However, clinical trials may not reflect actual drug use in the population. OBJECTIVE: To examine the distribution and determinants of patterns of use of antihypertensive agents in the first 5 years of hypertension treatment in Saskatchewan. METHODS: Patterns of use and modifications to therapy were derived from a careful examination of medication use in a cohort of 19 501 subjects aged 40 to 79 years, without recognized cardiac disease and initiating therapy with an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, a calcium antagonist, or a beta-blocker in Saskatchewan between 1990 and 1993. RESULTS: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (37.4%), followed by calcium antagonists (27.5%) and beta-blockers (26.4%), were the most commonly prescribed agents to initiate treatment in our study population. Patients with diabetes were less likely to be dispensed a beta-blocker, as were younger and female patients. Previous visits to a cardiologist decreased the likelihood of receiving combination therapy or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors but increased that of using calcium antagonists. Apart from dose adjustment, 89% of study subjects underwent at least 1 modification to their initial regimen, at a median time of 134 days. After 1 year, only 33.8% of patients were still using their initial drug. An early decrease in the proportion of patients continuing to receive initial therapy was noted, especially among beta-blocker users. CONCLUSIONS: Erratic drug-taking behaviors were observed in this Saskatchewan population. In addition, initial drug use does not seem to be in accordance with the stepped-care approach to hypertension therapy recommended in the Canadian guidelines.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".