Review: Low-quality evidence fails to show that antihypertensive drugs affect outcomes in mild hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACP Journal Club18 December 2012Review: Low-quality evidence fails to show that antihypertensive drugs affect outcomes in mild hypertensionJames Brophy, MD, FRCP, PhDJames Brophy, MD, FRCP, PhDMcGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (J.B.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-157-12-201212180-02006 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissions ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationDiao D, Wright JM, Cundiff DK, Gueyffier F. Pharmacotherapy for mild hypertension. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(8):CD006742. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22895954Clinical Impact RatingsGIM/FP/GP: Cardiology: Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada (J.B.)This article was published at Annals.org on 4 December 2012. PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Metrics Cited byAre we using blood pressure-lowering drugs appropriately? Perhaps now is the time for a change 18 December 2012Volume 157, Issue 12Page: JC6-6KeywordsAntihypertensive drug therapyCoronary heart diseaseDatabasesDrugsHypertensionStrokeSystematic reviewsTreatment guidelines ePublished: 18 December 2012 Issue Published: 18 December 2012 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2012 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.044 | 0.293 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".