MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Analysis of antihypertensive drug use and ESRD incidence in Canada and US

2004· article· en· W1985838370 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ralph G. Hawkins

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntihypertensive drugIncidence (geometry)DrugInternal medicineCardiologyBlood pressurePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antihypertensive drug use in North America has varied during the 1990s while the incidence rates of ESRD have increased. We analyzed variations in use of the four prominant drug categories retrospectively to determine if ESRD variation was associated with variations in antihypertensive drug use. Data fusion technique assessing market share of antihypertensive medications and annual changes in ESRD incidence was used. The predictor variables were market share percentage of total national cardiovascular expenditure for four medication groups (diuretics (D), beta-blockers (B), calcium channel blockers (C) or ACE-inhibitors (A)) in each country for the years 1990 to 2001 inclusive. Data were time-lagged by 4 years, consistent with our previous findings. Multiple regression analysis used MODSTAT (all rights reserved). Coefficients of correlation were calculated to show relationships between predictor variables and the dependent variable. Coefficients for each predictor variable are shown. Drugs associated with the highest predictor coefficient are associated with increased ESRD, and those with the lowest predictor coefficient have the lowest association. Drugs with a negative coefficient are protective, since increased use is associated with lower ESRD incidence. Canadian data show a coefficient of 0.95568, indicating that 91.33 percent of the variation in ESRD incidence in Canada from 1990-1996 could be explained by drug variations (p=0.037). From highest to lowest, the drugs had the following coefficients of prediction: diuretics (26.6), CCBs (3.3), ACE-Is (0.9), BB (−12.8). US data show a coefficient 0.91856, indicating that 84.37 percent of the variation in ESRD incidence in the US from 1990-1997 could be explained by drug variations (p=0.05). From highest to lowest, the drugs had the following coefficients of prediction: diuretics (6.7), CCBs (0.99), ACE inhibitors (−1.97), beta-blockers (−2.9). Retrospective analysis of antihypertensive medication use shows that variability of ESRD incidence is predicted knowing the market share of the major drug categories four years earlier. Diuretics were identified with the highest predictive coefficient associated with ESRD, CCBs were essentially neutral, ACE inhibitors (US) and beta-blockers (both) found a negative predictive coefficient, implying renoprotection. In both databases the order of coefficients for the drugs were D>C>A>B. Arguably JNC 7 and ALLHAT recommendations may need re-evaluation. Am J Hypertens (2004) 17, 22A–22A; doi: 10.1016/j.amjhyper.2004.03.051

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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