MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113140933 · doi:10.1345/aph.10367

Methodology to Determine Duration of Action for Antihypertensive Drugs

2002· review· en· W2113140933 on OpenAlexaff
Jean Lefèbvre, Luc Poirier, Yves Lacourcière

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDuration (music)Action (physics)PharmacologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To review and comment on methods used to assess the duration of action of antihypertensive drugs. DATA SOURCES: A MEDLINE search (1966-June 2000) using key terms such as trough-to-peak ratio and ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was conducted. STUDY SELECTION: An article was considered for this review if it pertained to the assessment of the duration of action of antihypertensive drugs. Special attention was given to articles dealing with methodologic aspects. DATA SYNTHESIS: Antihypertensive drugs with a long duration of action are thought to provide better therapeutic coverage against hypertensive complications compared with that of short-acting agents. Measuring blood pressure at the end of the dosing interval may be a way to assess the duration of action of a drug. However, the use of high doses of a short-acting agent to obtain sufficient effect when at trough concentrations can potentially cause dose-related adverse effects at the peak time, contributing to nonadherence to therapy and thus to adverse outcomes. To alleviate this problem, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has conceptualized the trough-to-peak (T:P) ratio. Although this arithmetic index has since been widely used to characterize the duration and safety of blood pressure control achieved by antihypertensive agents, several methodologic flaws limit its interpretation in the clinic. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) is a more reliable approach to assess the duration of action and outcome of antihypertensive therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Different methodologic approaches exist to evaluate the duration of action of antihypertensive drugs. Although the T:P ratio has been suggested by the FDA, it is difficult to establish a fair comparison among various antihypertensive agents based solely on this index. Treatment evaluation based on ABPM may be preferable to those guided by T:P because ABPM is more reproducible and is now established as a predictor of cardiovascular risk.

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)0.090
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.260
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.477

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0900.260
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.008
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.646
GPT teacher head0.546
Teacher spread0.099 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207