MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003516829 · doi:10.1111/ctr.13803

Impacts of center and clinical factors in antihypertensive medication use after kidney transplantation

2020· article· en· W3003516829 on OpenAlexaff
Farrukh M. Koraishy, Hala Yamout, Abhijit S. Naik, Zidong Zhang, Mark A. Schnitzler, Rosemary Ouseph, Ngan N. Lam, Vikas R. Dharnidharka, David A. Axelrod, Gregory P. Hess, Dorry L. Segev, Bertram L. Kasiske, Krista L. Lentine

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesHealth Resources and Services AdministrationMinneapolis Medical Research FoundationU.S. Department of Health and Human Services
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineThiazideDihydropyridineKidney transplantationPopulationOdds ratioTransplantationBlood pressureCalcium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypertension guidelines recommend calcium channel blockers (CCBs), thiazide diuretics, and angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers (ACEi/ARBs) as first-line agents to treat hypertension. Hypertension is common among kidney transplant (KTx) recipients, but data are limited regarding patterns of antihypertensive medication (AHM) use in this population. We examined a novel database that links national registry data for adult KTx recipients (age > 18 years) with AHM fill records from a pharmaceutical claims warehouse (2007-2016) to describe use and correlates of AHM use during months 7-12 post-transplant. For patients filling AHMs, individual agents used included: dihydropyridine (DHP) CCBs, 55.6%; beta-blockers (BBs), 52.8%; diuretics, 30.0%; ACEi/ARBs, 21.1%; non-DHP CCBs, 3.0%; and others, 20.1%. Both BB and ACEi/ARB use were significantly lower in the time period following the 2014 Eighth Joint National Committee (JNC-8) guidelines (2014-2016), compared with an earlier period (2007-2013). The median odds ratios generated from case-factor adjusted models supported variation in use of ACEi/ARBs (1.51) and BBs (1.55) across transplant centers. Contrary to hypertension guidelines for the general population, KTx recipients are prescribed relatively more BBs and fewer ACEi/ARBs. The clinical impact of this AHM prescribing pattern warrants further study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207