Review: simplifying dosing regimens appears to improve treatment adherence in patients with high blood pressure in ambulatory settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schroeder K, Fahey T, Ebrahim S. Interventions for improving adherence to treatment in patients with high blood pressure in ambulatory settings. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004;(2):CD004804.[OpenUrl][1] Q In patients with high blood pressure in ambulatory settings, what is the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing adherence to blood pressure lowering medication? ### ![Graphic][2]</img>Data sources: Medline, CINAHL, and EMBASE/Excerpta Medica (all from inception to April 2002); Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Issue 1, 2002); bibliographies of relevant articles; authors; and experts. ### ![Graphic][3]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language that compared interventions to increase adherence to blood pressure lowering medication (including patient education, simplification of dosage regimens, involvement of allied health professionals, special monitoring methods, and motivation) with no intervention or usual care in adults with essential hypertension in a primary care, outpatient, or other community setting. Exclusion criteria included … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCochrane%2BDatabase%2BSyst%2BRev%26rft.volume%253D%25282%2529%26rft.spage%253DCD004804%26rft.atitle%253DCOCHRANE%2BDATABASE%2BSYST%2BREV%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]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".