MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024756877 · doi:10.1136/ebm.12.4.116

Review: drugs for mild to moderate hypertension in pregnancy reduce the risk of severe hypertension but not pre-eclampsia

2007· letter· en· W2024756877 on OpenAlexaff
Laura A. Magee

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2007
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and preeclampsia studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclampsiaMedicinePregnancyHypertension in PregnancyObstetricsPreeclampsiaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abalos E, Duley L, Steyn D, et al. Antihypertensive drug therapy for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(1):CD002252. [OpenUrl][1][PubMed][2] Q In pregnant women with mild to moderate hypertension, what are the benefits and risks of antihypertensive (anti-HT) drugs? Is one type of anti-HT drug better than another? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★☆☆ GP/FP/Obstetrics ★★★★★★☆ Internal medicine ★★★★★★☆ Nephrology ★★★★★★☆ Obstetrics ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][3] Data sources: Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register (March 2006); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (2005, issue 3); and Medline, LILACS, and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (to November 2005). ### ![Graphic][4] Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any anti-HT drug (compared with placebo or no anti-HT drug [control] or another type of anti-HT drug) for mild to moderate hypertension during pregnancy. Quasi-randomised studies and those involving treatment for <7 days were excluded. 46 RCTs met the selection criteria: 28 RCTs compared anti-HT drugs with control (n = 3200) and 19 RCTs compared 2 types of anti-HT drugs (n = 1282). ### ![Graphic][5] Outcomes: severe hypertension, pre-eclampsia, fetal or neonatal death, preterm … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCochrane%2BDatabase%2BSyst%2BRev%26rft.volume%253D1%26rft.spage%253DCD002252%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17253478%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17253478&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F4%2F116.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicPregnancy and preeclampsia studiesFrench-language works237,207