Combination therapy as first-line treatment of arterial hypertension.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mild to moderate hypertension still remains poorly controlled. This relates to multiple factors including low antihypertensive efficacy of single drug therapies, reluctance of primary care physicians to modify or titrate initially chosen therapy to obtain target blood pressure and poor compliance with medication. Evidence discussed in the present paper points to superior control of blood pressure by combinations of low doses of two drugs compared with monotherapy in regular doses. This superior effectiveness of combined therapy relates to a better antihypertensive efficacy and higher response rates in the low range of doses as the result of complementary mechanisms of antihypertensive effects. It is associated with better tolerance as the result of a lower rate of side effects in the low range of dosing, improved compliance from better tolerance and simple drug regimen, and lower cost. Increased use of fixed, low dose combination therapies can be expected to result in better control of arterial hypertension in the population. Given the evidence for superior antihypertensive efficacy and better tolerability, and the absence of harm from fixed, low dose drug combinations per se, this alternative deserves more consideration in the guidelines of major hypertension organizations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.003 |
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".