Prevention of Fatal and Nonfatal Ischemic Heart Disease by Early Treatment of Hypertension
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1979 and 1984 two major hypertension intervention studies involving 14,000 patients have demonstrated convincing evidence for the effectiveness of blood pressure reduction on both primary and secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease. Previous treatment trials using insufficient numbers and shorter observation periods had produced inconclusive results as far as coronary heart disease is concerned. More recently, warnings have been voiced that untoward effects of diuretics on serum lipids might possibly harm the hypertensive patient because of transient slight increases of cholesterol levels. In this regard, two antihypertensive treatment studies, one lasting 5 years and the other 6 years, are reassuring as they provide unequivocal proof that there is no undesirable increase in lipid levels. The myocardium and its coronary arteries today appear as the major target organ among patients with untreated hypertension. 'Mild' blood pressure elevation is very frequent and, since poorly controlled hypertension was shown to contribute the largest number of cases of fatal and nonfatal ischemic heart disease, it is recommended that the present conservative therapeutic approach toward 'mild' hypertension should be re-evaluated.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it