MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039029105 · doi:10.1517/13543784.13.3.245

The therapeutic potential of angiotensin II receptor blockers in the treatment of heart failure

2004· review· en· W2039029105 on OpenAlexaff
Robert S. McKelvie

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Investigational Drugs · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngiotensin IIHeart failureMedicineRenin–angiotensin systemAldosteroneClinical trialInternal medicineAngiotensin Receptor BlockersCardiologyAngiotensin-converting enzymeAngiotensin II receptor type 1PharmacologyAngiotensin receptorEndocrinologyReceptorBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In clinical heart failure (HF) the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system is an important component of neurohormonal activation. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors have been shown to be of great clinical benefit in reducing the production of angiotensin II. However, they do not fully suppress angiotensin II production in HF because there are other pathways through which angiotensin II can be produced. Theoretically, angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have great potential because of their ability to directly block angiotensin II produced through any pathway. A large body of literature has accumulated examining the effects of ARBs in HF. The earlier, smaller studies examined outcomes such as symptoms, neurohormonal concentrations and cardiac function. More recent, larger studies have examined the effects of ARBs on mortality and morbidity. This paper reviews the data defining the role of ARBs in the treatment of HF patients, focusing more on the large randomised clinical outcome trials.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.294 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Investigational DrugsSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207