Bibliographic record
Abstract
Guidelines for hypertension management from NICE(England, 2011) as well as USA-JNC-8(2014) no more recommend β-blockers as first line anti-hypertensive drugs. The evidences based for the recommendation are that β-blockers, mainly atenolol, inferior to other recommended 4-classes of antihypertensive drugs in reduction of cardiovascular diseases risk. We found that most clinical trails were performed before 2005, more than 70% of those trials used atenolol in subjects of age 65 years or more. This is why Canadian Hypertension Education Program(2012) still recommends β-blockers as first-line antihypertensive drugs for patients at age less than 65 years in 2013 guideline. Since third generation of β-blockers, including Carvedilol, and Nebivolol, has longer half life and less metabolic side effects than does atenolol. The author endorse the recommendation from ESH/ESC 2013 guideline, the selection of antihypertensive therapy should follow the principal of personalized medicine, to take into account of each hypertensive individual's β-blocker indications other than high blood pressure. Since only less than 5% of hypertensives are free of conventional cardiovascular risk factors. β-blocker could not be retired after serving the war against hypertension for half century.
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 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.005 |
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".