Bibliographic record
Abstract
Editor—Taylor speculates that the reason that the HOPE (heart outcomes prevention evaluation) study did not show a significant relation between blood pressure and outcome was because ramipril was taken at bedtime.1 We believe that this assertion is incorrect for several reasons. Firstly, the population studied in the paper by Svensson et al differed substantially from the overall HOPE population.2 This substudy focused on 38 patients who had peripheral arterial disease whereas only 43% of the overall HOPE population had such disease. Moreover, the patients recruited from the one centre participating in this substudy had blood pressures that were appreciably different from those in the overall trial (150/79 mm Hg v 139/79 mm Hg). Secondly, even if a blood pressure reduction were extrapolated from the substudy by Svensson et al (which we believe is not appropriate), the degree of blood pressure reduction may at most be underestimated by 40%. With this taken into account, the blood pressure reduction between ramipril and placebo would be an estimated 4/3 mm Hg, and the effect on myocardial infarction still remains larger than that expected on the basis of epidemiological data. Thirdly, studies that have assessed two different approaches to blood pressure—for example, the LIFE (losartan intervention for endpoint reduction in hypertension) study examining the effect of angiotensin receptor blockers v β blockers3—show that blockers of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system provide greater clinical benefit when blood pressure reduction is identical. Furthermore, other blood pressure lowering agents, such as calcium channel blockers, have been previously studied in populations similar to HOPE with no evidence of clinical benefit.4 Finally, the results of the HOPE study have now been confirmed by other large independent studies.5
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 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.027 | 0.036 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.032 | 0.024 |
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".