MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2025428059 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2014.02.015

β-Adrenergic Receptor Blockers in Hypertension

2014· review· en· W2025428059 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sheldon W. Tobe

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAdrenergic receptorAdrenergicAlpha-1B adrenergic receptorAlpha-1D adrenergic receptorPharmacologyInternal medicineReceptorCardiologyBeta-3 adrenergic receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

β-Blockers have been used widely since the 1970s in the treatment of hypertension. In recent years, however, the use of β-blockers as an initial therapy in the treatment of hypertension has been challenged. The reasons for this controversy and the rationale for keeping β-blockers as a recommended treatment for hypertension are discussed in the articles in this supplement to the Canadian Journal of Cardiology (CJC).

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Cardiology→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→