MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054256748 · doi:10.1172/jci69296

Where hypertension happens

2013· letter· en· W2054256748 on OpenAlexafffund
Timothy L. Reudelhuber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Investigation · 2013
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Clinical Research InstituteMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineRenin–angiotensin systemMechanism (biology)Essential hypertensionPathophysiology of hypertensionIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsInternal medicineBlood pressureBiologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Essential hypertension, which accounts for 90%-95% of all cases of hypertension seen in the clinic, is also referred to as idiopathic hypertension, because we simply don't understand the cause(s). Although many theories have been advanced, in the current issue of the JCI, Gonzalez-Villalobos et al. present further evidence implicating the intrarenal renin-angiotensin system and take us one step further by proposing a mechanism underlying this pathology.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0100.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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 head0.174
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.195 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations10
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical InvestigationSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207