MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcomes in high risk hypertensives randomized to CCB vs ACE inhibitor in ALLHAT

2005· article· en· W2117695538 on OpenAlexaff
F LEENEN, Chuke Nwachuku, William C. Cushman, Henry R. Black, L. Simpson, B. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hypertension · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChlorthalidoneLisinoprilInternal medicineStroke (engine)AmlodipineMyocardial infarctionBlood pressureCardiologyAngiotensin-converting enzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The clinic-based Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) studied 33,357 hypertensive participants age 55 years or older with at least one other coronary heart disease (CHD) risk factor. Interventions were chlorthalidone (C), amlodipine (A), or lisinopril (L), plus open-label step-up drugs for blood pressure control. The primary outcome was combined fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction. As well as comparisons with C, ALLHAT provides post hoc comparisons in A (n=9048, 3213 blacks) versus L (n=9054, 3210 blacks). At years 2 and 4, syst/diast BP's were higher on L vs A by 3.4/1.8 and 1.6/1.1 in blacks and 0.3/0.6 and 0.3/0.8 in non-blacks, respectively. L and A did not differ for the primary outcome (L vs A, RR and 95% CI, 1.01, 0.91–1.11). For secondary outcomes all-cause mortality and combined CHD, L and A were similar. Rates were higher on L vs A for stroke (1.23, 1.08–1.4, p=0.003) and combined CVD (1.06, 1.00–1.12, p=0.047). Stroke rates were higher in blacks (1.51, 1.22–1.86) but not in non-blacks (1.07, 0.89–1.28) on L. Combined CVD was also higher in blacks (1.13, 1.02–1.24) and not in non-blacks (1.03, 0.96–1.10) on L. For other components of combined CVD, rates were lower for HF (0.87, 0.78–0.96) and higher for peripheral arterial disease (1.19, 1.01–1.40) in both blacks and non-blacks on L vs A, and higher for hospitalized angina only in blacks (1.26, 1.03–1.55). Other endpoints, end stage renal disease and cancer rates were similar for L and A, whereas hospitalized GI bleeds were higher on L vs A (1.20, 1.06–1.37, p=0.004) in both blacks and non-blacks. For several major outcomes, risks are the same for treatment initiated with L or A, for some outcomes risks are higher on L, and for one (HF) lower on L. Most outcome differences were more prominent in blacks, resulting in an apparent overall burden of cardiovascular disease higher on L versus A in blacks but not in non-blacks. Differences in BP control appear to contribute to these differences in some outcomes, but not for others.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207