Bibliographic record
Abstract
Angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs), used in the treatment of hypertension, may modulate neurotransmission in the central nervous system. One previous very small case-control study had suggested that ARBs increase the odds of suicide. In a recent, large, population-based, nested case-control study conducted in Ontario, Canada, completed suicide was associated with significantly increased odds of an ARB prescription during the 100 days preceding the suicide; in this analysis, confounding by indication was reduced by comparing ARB exposure with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor exposure. The results of this new study were widely disseminated in the scientific and mass media. However, at least some of the data presented in the study appeared implausible, and at least one important calculation was incorrect. Furthermore, important subgroup analyses were not conducted. These incongruities diminish the confidence of the reader in the data and in the analyses presented in the study. A generous conclusion is that, at best, ARB use is a marker of suicide risk that merits examination in studies that include a follow-up, in which absolute risks and dose-dependent and treatment duration-dependent effects can be examined. A parsimonious conclusion is that there is no association proven between ARB exposure and suicide.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".