MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045694232 · doi:10.1136/ebm.7.4.109

Treating isolated systolic hypertension prevented major cardiovascular events across strata of risk in older patients

2002· article· en· W2045694232 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicinePlaceboBlood pressureStroke (engine)Myocardial infarctionSystolic hypertensionAtrial fibrillationDiastoleCardiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(2001) Circulation 104, 1923; Ferrucci L, Furberg CD, Penninx BW, et al. . Treatment of isolated systolic hypertension is most effective in older patients with high-risk profile. . Oct 16; . : . –6 . [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: In older patients with isolated systolic hypertension (ISH), is blood pressure (BP) lowering treatment more effective than placebo for preventing major cardiovascular disease (CVD) events in those at high risk than in those at low risk? Randomised {allocation concealed*}†, blinded (outcome assessors),* placebo controlled trial with 4.5 years of follow up (subgroup analysis of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program [SHEP] trial). {5 clinical centres in the US}†. 4736 community dwelling patients who were ≥ 60 years of age and had ISH (systolic BP 160 to 219 mm Hg and diastolic BP < 90 mm Hg assessed and averaged over 2 visits), no atrial fibrillation, and no history of myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke in the previous 6 months. Patients taking antihypertensive medications were eligible if their … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCirculation%26rft.stitle%253DCirculation%26rft.issn%253D0009-7322%26rft.aulast%253DFerrucci%26rft.auinit1%253DL.%26rft.volume%253D104%26rft.issue%253D16%26rft.spage%253D1923%26rft.epage%253D1926%26rft.atitle%253DTreatment%2Bof%2BIsolated%2BSystolic%2BHypertension%2BIs%2BMost%2BEffective%2Bin%2BOlder%2BPatients%2BWith%2BHigh-Risk%2BProfile%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1161%252Fhc4101.097520%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11602495%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=circulationaha&resid=104/16/1923&atom=%2Febmed%2F7%2F4%2F109.atom

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designlow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary · Empirical

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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207