MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P3562A new approach to diastolic blood pressure targets in patients with hypertension and coronary artery disease

2017· article· en· W2763661534 on OpenAlexaff
Simon W. Rabkin, Jeffrey Yim

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseBlood pressureInternal medicineDiastoleDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Treatment of hypertension in the presence of coronary artery disease (CAD) can be challenging because myocardial perfusion is a function of the severity of coronary artery stenosis, level of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) which represents myocardial perfusion pressure and the amount of the myocardial mass being perfused. Excessive lowering of DBP may compromise coronary blood flow (CBF) but this is independent of the other determinants of CBF. Purpose: To examine a model which integrates these three CBF determinants in management of patients with hypertension Methods: We developed non-parametric equations that incorporate fractional flow reserve (FFR) measured at the time of coronary angiography and left ventricular mass measured by echocardiography and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). To validate and extrapolate the utility of this approach, a retrospective case review was conducted from the electronic medical records of persons attending a Cardiology Clinic. A consecutive patient sample (N=81) with CAD documented by coronary angiogram or coronary computerized tomography angiogram (CCTA) without previous PCI or valvular heart disease and with echocardiographic assessment of LV mass, was evaluated. FFR was estimated from the degree of coronary stenosis on coronary angiogram or CCTA. Blood pressure was measured in the office by an automated device.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→