Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: We would like to thank Dr Tomoyuki Kawada for his comments regarding our recent article about the prescription pattern of antihypertensive drugs in China.1 In his letter to the editor, Tomoyuki Kawada expressed concern about the applicability of our study results, which found that 56% of hypertensive patients were treated with diuretics, to patients of different ethnicities or of the same ethnicity with different socioeconomic status. The purpose of our article was to describe the present pattern of hypertensive drug treatment in many community health centers across China to detect any differences between the current prescription pattern and the recommendations of the Chinese guidelines for hypertension prevention and control. This information would then be used to develop a specific protocol to train primary care physicians in evidence-based use of antihypertensive drugs. Suggesting specific therapies for different ethnicities or the same ethnicity in various socioeconomic strata was not a part of our study. As explained in our article, the observed higher rate of diuretic use throughout China in contrast with those previously reported for certain urban areas or neighboring countries may be because of the lower cost of diuretics, making them more accessible to the general population for antihypertensive treatment. We also did not collect any data on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Thus, the frequency of this condition among our study sample was not determined. That said, the actual number of patients with OSA is assumed to be low, although there is a lack of data on the prevelance of OSA in mainland China. One Taiwanese study reported a 2.6% prevalence in the adult population.2 The effects of antihypertensive agents on OSA activity are not uniform.3 At the moment, there is no obvious antihypertensive drug class that has demonstrated superior antihypertensive efficacy in OSA patients.3 Diuretics, therefore, remain the cornerstone of antihypertensive treatment because they are recommended as the first-choice drug to start antihypertensive treatment in most current guidelines—namely, the recently released 2013 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension.4
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 | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.024 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".