Treatment of High‐Risk African American Patients: Left Ventricular Dysfunction, Heart Failure, Renal Disease, and Postmyocardial Infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
African Americans experience more mortality and morbidity from hypertension-related complications than other racial groups. Although angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors have clearly been shown to reduce mortality and morbidity in hypertensive white patients with heart failure, renal dysfunction, stroke, and acute myocardial infarction, African American patients have been underrepresented in these trials. The lack of direct evidence of the benefit of ACE inhibitors in these individuals and the suggestion that ACE inhibitors are less efficacious in this group has resulted in a reluctance to use ACE inhibitors in African Americans. However, retrospective analyses in black patients with heart failure and a recent randomized clinical trial in African Americans with renal dysfunction suggest that a regimen based on ACE inhibitors is efficacious in this racial group. Although diuretics remain first-line therapy, data now suggest that ACE inhibitors provide additional benefit and should be considered for use in patients with high-risk complications regardless of race.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".