Smoking Habits and Antihypertensive Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Five hypertension intervention trials (HDFP, MRFIT, Australian National BP Study, IPPPSH, MRC) were analyzed for the effect of smoking on antihypertensive therapy and final outcome in coronary and all-cause mortality. In addition, an observational study of primary screenees for MRFIT was reviewed. Thus, the hypertensive population evaluated in this paper amounts to 135,851 patients. HDFP revealed that smokers had about twice the mortality rates compared to nonsmokers regardless of the treatment group to which they were randomized. The annual incidence of events in the Australian Study among nonsmokers in the placebo group was even lightly lower than in smokers under active therapy. The results of the MRFIT showed that smoking had a particularly deleterious impact on those hypertensives whose cholesterol levels were elevated. In this group, the coronary death rates were 10 times higher than in nonsmokers with lower cholesterol levels. Although the treatment with beta-blockers reduced the coronary event rates in the MRC and in IPPPSH, this beneficial effect was absent in smokers. However, in trials in which diuretic treatment is effective in nonsmokers, it is equally effective in smokers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".