MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Intraclass Differences Among Antihypertensive Drugs

2014· review· en· W2101849950 on OpenAlexaff
Ross D. Feldman, Yasin Hussain, Laura M. Kuyper, Finlay A. McAlister, Raj Padwal, Sheldon W. Tobe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityUniversity of AlbertaSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThiazideAtenololHydrochlorothiazideMedicinePharmacologyBlood pressureLosartanInternal medicineRenin–angiotensin system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The four major classes of antihypertensive drugs—diuretics, β-blockers, calcium channel blockers, and renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers)—have significant qualitative and quantitative differences in the adverse effects they cause. Structural and chemical differences have been identified within these classes, especially among the calcium channel blockers and, to a lesser extent, among the thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics. However, it has been more difficult to demonstrate that these differences translate into differential effects with respect to either the surrogate endpoint of blood pressure reduction or, more importantly, hypertension-related cardiovascular complications. Based on a hierarchy-of-evidence approach, differences are apparent between hydrochlorothiazide and chlorthalidone based on evidence of moderate quality. Low-quality evidence suggests atenolol is less effective than other β-blockers. However, no significant intraclass differences have been established among the other classes of antihypertensive drugs.

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)0.028
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0280.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.007
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.334 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Annual Review of Pharmacology and ToxicologySame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207