MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132185981 · doi:10.1517/14656566.3.4.411

Treatment options for renovascular hypertension

2002· review· en· W2132185981 on OpenAlexaff
J. David Spence

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsThrombosis and Atherosclerosis Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenovascular hypertensionRenal artery stenosisCardiologyInternal medicineAngioplastyBlood pressureRenal arteryPathophysiology of hypertensionStenosisKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renovascular hypertension is usually caused by atherosclerotic narrowing of the origin of the renal artery and is much more common than is thought among patients with peripheral vascular disease, carotid stenosis or heart failure. Renovascular hypertension must be distinguished from renal artery stenosis. In true renovascular hypertension, the kidney takes charge of the blood pressure and will do what it takes to push blood pressure high enough to force blood through the blocked artery. This can be diagnosed with functional tests that measure glomerular filtration rate before and after blockade of the renin-angiotensin system with angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or antagonists of the AT(1) subtype of the angiotensin receptor. There is insufficient data on which to make evidence-based recommendations on the management of renovascular hypertension. Only two randomised trials exist of angioplasty versus medical therapy and of these the larger was severely contaminated by angioplasty among the group initially assigned to medical therapy. Only one trial exists of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibition versus alternative medical therapy. The drugs that are most effective in medical management of renovascular hypertension--angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor-1 blockers--tend to be avoided because of fear of a very rare complication (acute renal failure in patients with severe stenosis of both renal arteries, or the artery to a single remaining kidney). This fear is misplaced not only because it is rare (< 5% of patients with renovascular hypertension) but because it is reversible and treatable by revascularisation. Patients with renovascular hypertension should be evaluated by nuclear medicine differential glomerular filtration rate, enhanced by blockers of the renin-angiotensin system. If medical therapy is ineffective or causes severe impairment of renal function, revascularisation is required. Some experts favour surgical revascularisation because of occasional angioplasty failure and the risk of deterioration of renal function after angioplasty.

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)0.003
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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.221

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.012

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations21
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on PharmacotherapySame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207