Use of a treatment algorithm did not improve blood pressure control in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bebb C, Kendrick D, Coupland C, et al . A cluster randomised controlled trial of the effect of a treatment algorithm for hypertension in patients with type 2 diabetes. Br J Gen Pract 2007;57:136–43.[OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] Q Does a treatment algorithm improve blood pressure (BP) control in primary care patients with type 2 diabetes? ### ![Graphic][3] Design: cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). ### ![Graphic][4] Allocation: concealed. ### ![Graphic][5] Blinding: blinded (data analysts). ### ![Graphic][6] Follow-up period: 1 year. ### ![Graphic][7] Setting: 42 general practices in Nottingham, UK. ### ![Graphic][8] Patients: 1534 patients 18–80 years of age (mean age 64 y, 59% men) who had type 2 diabetes and had not required insulin within 12 months of diagnosis. Exclusion criteria were life expectancy <1 year and inability to attend appointments. ### ![Graphic][9] Intervention: 20 practices (797 patients) were allocated to use of a treatment algorithm for 1 year. Practice nurses received training and guidelines on the use … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DBritish%2BJournal%2Bof%2BGeneral%2BPractise%26rft.stitle%253Dbjgp%26rft.aulast%253DBebb%26rft.auinit1%253DC.%26rft.volume%253D57%26rft.issue%253D535%26rft.spage%253D136%26rft.epage%253D143%26rft.atitle%253DA%2Bcluster%2Brandomised%2Bcontrolled%2Btrial%2Bof%2Bthe%2Beffect%2Bof%2Ba%2Btreatment%2Balgorithm%2Bfor%2Bhypertension%2Bin%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2Btype%2B2%2Bdiabetes%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17263930%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]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=bjgp&resid=57/535/136&atom=%2Febnurs%2F10%2F4%2F121.atom [3]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".