MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045709802 · doi:10.1136/ebn.7.3.80

Adjustment of antihypertensive medication using home based, patient monitored blood pressure reduced both intensity of treatment and blood pressure control

2004· letter· en· W2045709802 on OpenAlexaff
Gillian Yates

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureInternal medicinePediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Staessen JA, Den Hond E, Celis H, et al for the Treatment of Hypertension Based on Home or Office Blood Pressure (THOP) Trial Investigators. Antihypertensive treatment based on blood pressure measurement at home or in the physician’s office: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2004;291:955–64.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Is home based, self measurement of blood pressure (BP) more effective than office based, physician measurement as a basis for initiating and titrating antihypertensive drug treatment? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: concealed. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded {patients, physician making treatment decisions, outcome assessors, data analysts, and monitoring committee}*. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 1 year. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: 56 primary care practices and 3 hospital based outpatient clinics in Leuven, Belgium and a specialised hypertension clinic in Dublin, Ireland. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 400 patients ⩾18 years of age (mean age 53 y, 52% women) who had either untreated or treated hypertension (using ⩽2 antihypertensive agents), and the last of 3 consecutive readings … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.aulast%253DStaessen%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D291%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D955%26rft.epage%253D964%26rft.atitle%253DAntihypertensive%2BTreatment%2BBased%2Bon%2BBlood%2BPressure%2BMeasurement%2Bat%2BHome%2Bor%2Bin%2Bthe%2BPhysician%2527s%2BOffice%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.291.8.955%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14982911%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/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.291.8.955&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14982911&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F3%2F80.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000189182000023&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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