Protective effects of antihypertensive treatment in patients aged 85 years or older
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether in individuals aged 85 years or older, adherence to antihypertensive drugs is accompanied by a reduced risk of cardiovascular events. METHODS: A nested case-control study was carried out on a cohort of patients aged 85 years or older, who were newly treated with antihypertensive drugs between 2007 and 2009, using the database available for all citizens (about 10 million) of Lombardy (Italy). Cases were the cohort members who experienced death or hospital discharge for stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) or heart failure from the initial prescription until 2012. Up to five controls were randomly selected for each case. Logistic regression was used to model the outcome risk associated with the adherence with antihypertensive drug therapy. A patient cohort aged 70-84 years was taken for comparison. RESULTS: Compared with patients with very low adherence, those aged 85 years or older (average 88 years) with high adherence showed a risk reduction for death (47%; 95% confidence interval, 5-57%) and all the outcomes combined (34%; 95% confidence interval, 21-45%). The risk of heart failure and stroke was also reduced, whereas the risk of MI was not affected by adherence with antihypertensive drugs. Similar findings were obtained in the cohort of patients aged 70-84 years. CONCLUSION: Adherence with antihypertensive drug therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular morbidity in patients aged 85 years or more, the benefit including heart failure and stroke, although not MI, and extending to all-cause death.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".