Сравнительный анализ предпочтений врачей из двух регионов Беларуси при амбулаторном лечении артериальной гипертензии
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arterial hypertension (АН) is the cardiovascular pathology most widespread in the world which treatment in many cases is carried out for life. For this reason, interest to rational treatment АГ always was big. As well as at other diseases antihypertensive therapy eventually undergoes changes. Therefore it seems to be reasonable to check doctor's viewpoint on antihypertensive therapy. Questioning is carried out in III quarter 2005 among 64 local doctors of 4 polyclinics of Grodno and in III quarter 2006 among 54 local doctors of 3 polyclinics of Gomel and Zhlobin. The purpose of it was comparison of approaches to hypertension pharmacotherapy of doctors from two regions of Belarus which divided geographically and has by a year time interval. Similar results are found out in both groups: positive (primary use ofrepresentatives of 4 basic classes ofantihypertensive drugs, combined treatment AH) and negative: the tendency of administration of too low dosages of diuretics and, partly, enalapril; wide application ofshort-acting preparations ofnifedipine, myotropic spamolytics and furosemide.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.018 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".