MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Lifestyle Changes and Blood Pressure Control: A Community‐Based Cross‐Sectional Survey (2006 Ontario Survey on the Prevalence and Control of Hypertension)

2009· letter· en· W1998602584 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Antoinette Schoenthaler, Joseph Ravenell, Senaida Fernandez, Gbenga Ogedegbe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2009
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureDashPsychological interventionPhysical therapyHypertension treatmentRandomized controlled trialLifestyle modificationAntihypertensive drugMyocardial infarctionIntervention (counseling)Internal medicineDiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lifestyle Changes and Blood Pressure Control: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Survey (2006 Ontario Survey on the Prevalence and Control of Hypertension)To the Editor: We read with interest the Fodor and colleagues 1 article in your January issue wherein the authors asserted, in our opinion most erroneously, that ''when a comparison is made between drug treatment and lifestyle changes, the outcomes of lifestyle interventions in real life are disappointing.''We would counter that drug therapy is not the only proven method of reducing blood pressure (BP) and most guidelines that recommend lifestyle changes for BP reduction are based on solid efficacy trials, including the Trials of Hypertension Prevention (TOHP), Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension (DASH), Prevention of Myocardial Infarction Early Remodeling (PREMIER), and Trial of Nonpharmacologic Interventions in the Elderly (TONE), to mention a few.This is especially true for patients who have stage 1 hypertension.In a recent PREMIER follow-up study, patients assessed 18 months later continued to have reduced BP, demonstrating the effectiveness of lifestyle changes. 2 In the TONE trial, a greater percentage (23%) of older adults who received the lifestyle intervention remained normotensive (following medication withdrawal) at the 48-month follow-up than those who received usual care (7%).3 Furthermore, the conclusion that ''practicing lifestyle changes did not add a beneficial effect to BP control compared with antihypertensive treatment with medications only'' cannot be supported by this data.First, the authors' comment is based on crosssectional surveys with a relatively small sample of 733 hypertensive individuals, rather than on studies designed to test the comparative effectiveness of drug therapy vs lifestyle changes on BP control.Second, data were not presented on the actual degree of medication adherence or amount of lifestyle change.Rather, the assessment asked participants ''whether they were using any nonpharmacologic and ⁄ or lifestyle treatments for BP control.''Although the authors note this limitation, they nevertheless reach beyond the limits of their data to minimize the effectiveness of lifestyle change for BP reduction.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.576
Threshold uncertainty score0.843

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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