Evaluating national guidelines for prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: National guidelines for prevention of cardiovascular disease make different recommendations in relation to screening and treating patients with aspirin, antihypertensive treatment and statins. The resource cost and health implications of these differences are quantified in this paper. DATA SOURCES: Guidelines were obtained from Australia, New Zealand, Canada, UK and USA. Effectiveness data were obtained from published sources, costs and a model population of 2000 patients from US sources. METHOD: The resource costs and health effects of screening and treating a standard population of 2000 persons were determined for each of the five national guidelines. Costs and effects were calculated over a 5-year time horizon and cost-effectiveness determined cost per cardiovascular event prevented. RESULTS: Cost per cardiovascular event prevented is lowest in older patients and very high under 35. The New Zealand guidelines are more cost-effective of the national guidelines, however, they would be more effective if they incorporated US recommendations on the use of aspirin. Further antihypertensive treatment is the least cost-effective of the interventions considered. DISCUSSION: Cardiovascular disease prevention guidelines should focus on older rather than younger patients. Treatment eligibility should be informed more by risk than by individual risk factor status. Guidelines should put greater emphasis on the use of aspirin and initial antihypertensive treatment than on achieving blood pressure targets. CONCLUSION: In order to justify their recommendations guidelines should quantify the resource implications in relation to the health benefits.
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 | 0.072 | 0.454 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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; 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".