MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021406499 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002453

2020 International Society of Hypertension global hypertension practice guidelines

2020· article· en· W3021406499 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Thomas Unger, Claudio Borghi, Fadi J. Charchar, Nadia Khan, Neil R Poulter, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Agustín J. Ramiréz, Markus P. Schlaich, George S. Stergiou, Maciej Tomaszewski, Richard D. Wainford, Bryan Williams, Aletta E. Schutte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPan American Health OrganizationInternational Society of HypertensionCenters for Disease Control and PreventionVital StrategiesWorld Heart FederationMcMaster UniversityWorld Health OrganizationMedical Research CouncilAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsZhàngChinaMedicineAncient historyLibrary scienceGeographyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Document reviewers: Hind Beheiry (Sudan), Irina Chazova (Russia), Albertino Damasceno (Mozambique), Anna Dominiczak (UK), Anastase Dzudie (Cameroon), Stephen Harrap (Australia), Hiroshi Itoh (Japan), Tazeen Jafar (Singapore), Marc Jaffe (USA), Patricio Jaramillo-Lopez (Colombia), Kazuomi Kario (Japan), Giuseppe Mancia (Italy), Ana Mocumbi (Mozambique), Sanjeevi N.Narasingan (India), Elijah Ogola (Kenya), Srinath Reddy (India), Ernesto Schiffrin (Canada), Ann Soenarta (Indonesia), Rhian Touyz (UK), Yudah Turana (Indonesia), Michael Weber (USA), Paul Whelton (USA), Xin Hua Zhang, (Australia), Yuqing Zhang (China).

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.270

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0080.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0810.075

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.339
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
GenreOther

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

Citations1,279
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207