MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982305305 · doi:10.1177/147323000303100503

Pulse Pressure Responses in Patients Treated with Valsartan and Hydrochlorothiazide Combination Therapy

2003· article· en· W1982305305 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Renzo Carretta, Peter Trenkwalder, Felipe A. Martínez, Andrzej Tykarski, Ivor Teitelbaum, Timothy Fagan, Pascale ODDOU, J-M Mallion

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of International Medical Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNovartis PharmaEuropean Society of CardiologyAGE-WELLNovartisAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsHydrochlorothiazideValsartanMedicineRandomizationCombination therapyBlood pressureUrologyDiureticRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group study of middle-aged and elderly patients, we examined the effects of treatment with the angiotensin receptor blocker valsartan (Val) in combination with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) on pulse pressure (PP). After a 2-week washout period, patients entered a 4-week single-blind Val 160 mg once daily run-in period before randomization to one of three treatment groups: Val 160 mg (n = 666), Val 160 mg/HCTZ 12.5 mg (n = 670) or Val 160 mg/HCTZ 25 mg (n = 666), once daily for eight weeks. Sitting PP at baseline was similar in all groups. From baseline to randomization, Val monotherapy reduced PP by 4.7 +/- 10.2 mmHg (mean +/- SD). At the end of the study, overall reductions in PP were 6.7 mmHg for Val 160/HCTZ 12.5 and 7.5 mmHg for Val 160/HCTZ 25. Val monotherapy reduced PP in mild-to-moderate hypertensive patients. Val combined with HCTZ provides an additional dose-related reduction in PP.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.325 · 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.

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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of International Medical ResearchSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207