Review: the renoprotective effects of ACE inhibitors and ARBs independent of blood pressure control are uncertain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Casas JP, Chua W, Loukogeorgakis S, et al. Effect of inhibitors of the renin-angiotensin system and other antihypertensive drugs on renal outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2005;366:2026–33. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Do angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have renoprotective effects independent of blood pressure (BP) control? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★☆☆ Nephrology ★★★★★★☆ Endocrine ★★★★★☆☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Data sources: Medline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, and the Cochrane Library (1960 to January 2005); and references of relevant studies and reviews. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with ⩾1 year follow up that examined the effect of drug treatment with a BP lowering action on progression of renal disease. 127 RCTs (150 comparisons) with mean follow up of 4.2 years met the selection criteria. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Outcomes: end stage renal disease (ESRD) (need for kidney transplantation or dialysis) and doubling of serum creatinine. Changes in BP were similar across the 5 outcomes; all but 1 showed no difference in the degree of change in systolic and diastolic BP between … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DCasas%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BP.%26rft.volume%253D366%26rft.issue%253D9502%26rft.spage%253D2026%26rft.epage%253D2033%26rft.atitle%253DEffect%2Bof%2Binhibitors%2Bof%2Bthe%2Brenin-angiotensin%2Bsystem%2Band%2Bother%2Bantihypertensive%2Bdrugs%2Bon%2Brenal%2Boutcomes%253A%2Bsystematic%2Breview%2Band%2Bmeta-analysis.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252805%252967814-2%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16338452%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)67814-2&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16338452&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F5%2F145.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000233826900022&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.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: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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.
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".