MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977186839 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0b013e3283455ca5

A double-blind, randomized study comparing the antihypertensive effect of eplerenone and spironolactone in patients with hypertension and evidence of primary aldosteronism

2011· article· en· W1977186839 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsEplerenoneSpironolactoneMedicinePrimary aldosteronismTolerabilityMineralocorticoid receptorInternal medicineUrologyEssential hypertensionAldosteronePlaceboHyperaldosteronismEndocrinologyAdverse effectBlood pressurePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Eplerenone is claimed to be a more selective blocker of the mineralocorticoid receptor than spironolactone being associated with fewer antiandrogenic side-effects. We compared the efficacy, safety and tolerability of eplerenone versus spironolactone in patients with hypertension associated with primary aldosteronism. METHODS: The study was multicentre, randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, and parallel group design. Following a single-blind, placebo run-in period, patients were randomized 1: 1 to a 16-week double-blind, treatment period of spironolactone (75-225 mg once daily) or eplerenone (100-300 mg once daily) using a titration-to-effect design. To be randomized, patients had to meet biochemical criteria for primary aldosteronism and have a seated DBP at least 90 mmHg and less than 120 mmHg and SBP less than 200 mmHg. The primary efficacy endpoint was the antihypertensive effect of eplerenone versus spironolactone to establish noninferiority of eplerenone in the mean change from baseline in seated DBP. RESULTS: Changes from baseline in DBP were less on eplerenone (-5.6 ± 1.3 SE mmHg) than spironolactone (-12.5 ± 1.3 SE mmHg) [difference, -6.9 mmHg (-10.6, -3.3); P<0.001]. Although there were no significant differences between eplerenone and spironolactone in the overall incidence of adverse events, more patients randomized to spironolactone developed male gynaecomastia (21.2 versus 4.5%; P=0.033) and female mastodynia (21.1 versus 0.0%; P=0.026). CONCLUSION: The antihypertensive effect of spironolactone was significantly greater than that of eplerenone in hypertension associated with primary aldosteronism.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.183 · 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