Amlodipine plus perindopril was better than atenolol plus bendroflumethiazide for reducing complications in hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dahlöf B, Sever PS, Poulter NR, et al . Prevention of cardiovascular events with an antihypertensive regimen of amlodipine adding perindopril as required versus atenolol adding bendroflumethiazide as required, in the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial-Blood Pressure Lowering Arm (ASCOT-BPLA): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:895–906. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients 40–79 years of age with hypertension and ⩾3 other cardiovascular (CV) risk factors, is amlodipine plus perindopril more effective than atenolol plus bendroflumethiazide for reducing CV outcomes? Clinical Impact Ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★☆☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★☆ Cardiology ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design randomised controlled trial (Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial–Blood Pressure Lowering Arm [ASCOT-BPLA]). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation concealed.* ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding blinded (outcome assessors).* ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period median 5.5 years. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting 686 family practices in the Nordic countries and 32 regional centres in the UK and Ireland. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients 19 257 patients 40–79 years of age (mean age 63 y, 77% men) who had hypertension and ⩾3 other CV risk factors. Exclusion criteria included previous myocardial infarction (MI), currently treated angina, and a cerebrovascular event … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DDahlof%26rft.auinit1%253DB.%26rft.volume%253D366%26rft.issue%253D9489%26rft.spage%253D895%26rft.epage%253D906%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252805%252967185-1%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16154016%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=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67185-1&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16154016&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F2%2F42.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000231770000027&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
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | medium |
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".