Randomised equivalence trial comparing three month and six month follow up of patients with hypertension by family practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare blood pressure control, satisfaction, and adherence to drug treatment in patients with treated hypertension followed up by their family physicians either every three months or every six months for three years. DESIGN: Randomised equivalence clinical trial. Settings 50 family practices in south eastern Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 609 patients aged 30-74 years with essential hypertension receiving drug treatment whose hypertension had been controlled for at least three months before entry into the study. RESULTS: 302 patients were randomly assigned to follow up every three months and 307 to follow up every six months. Baseline variables in the two groups were similar. As expected, patients in the six month group had significantly fewer visits, but patients in both groups visited their doctor more frequently than their assigned interval. Mean blood pressure was similar in the groups, as was control of hypertension. Patient satisfaction and adherence to treatment were similar in the groups. About 20% of patients in each group had blood pressures that were out of control during the study. CONCLUSIONS: Follow up of patients with treated essential hypertension every six months is equivalent to follow up every three months. Patient satisfaction and adherence to treatment are the same for these follow up intervals. As about 20% of patients' hypertension was out of control at any time during the study in both groups, the frequency of follow up may not the most important factor in the control of patients' hypertension by family practitioners.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".