Racial Differences in Blood Pressure Response to Calcium Channel Blocker Monotherapy: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A systematic literature review was conducted to determine whether US blacks and whites have differential blood pressure (BP) response to calcium channel blocker (CCB) monotherapy. METHODS: Six published studies made up the final cohort of eligible articles. Multiple treatment groups within some studies led to a total of eight sets of estimates for BP reduction with a total of 6,851 white or nonblack participants and 3,371 black participants. RESULTS: The pooled difference in systolic blood pressure (SBP) change between blacks and whites was -2.7 mm Hg (95% confidence interval (CI): -4.0, -1.3) with blacks having greater response. The difference in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) between blacks and whites was -0.4 mm Hg (95% CI: -1.0, 0.3) with blacks having greater response. Using a dichotomous outcome measure, whites were found to be just as likely as blacks to attain the DBP goal of <90 mm Hg or a 10 mm Hg or greater change (relative risk: 1.00 95% CI: 0.91, 1.11). In addition, examination of the continuous distribution of BP responses of whites and blacks showed over 90% overlap in treatment response. CONCLUSION: Assessment of differential response to CCB monotherapy by race in published data depends on choice of outcome metric. Nonetheless, the results of this systematic review indicate that BP response is qualitatively similar in US blacks and whites, suggesting that patient race is not likely to offer any clinical utility for decisions about the likely effect of this antihypertensive therapy.
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 | 0.015 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".