MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205373988 · doi:10.3399/bjgp22x718073

Thus spoke Honda: philosophy and technology

2021· article· en· W4205373988 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of General Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicHistory of Computing Technologies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Family Medicine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorningExcellenceBlood pressureAlternative medicineStroke (engine)ConfoundingAmbulatoryEveningMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Should we be advising patients to take their antihypertensives at night?I have read with great interest a research paper entitled 'Bedtime hypertension treatment improves cardiovascular risk reduction: the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial' published in the European Heart Journal by Hermida et al. 1 The trial randomly assigned 19 084 patients to either take their antihypertensives upon waking in the morning or at bedtime.The patients were subsequently followed up over a median period of 6.3 years with ambulatory 48-hour blood pressure monitoring done at inclusion and at least annually.After adjusting for significant confounding variables such as sex, age, smoking history, type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, previous and cardiovascular events, among others, the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, coronary revascularisation, heart failure, or stroke nearly halved (6.5% vs. 11.9%).National Institute for Health and Care Excellence advice on starting antihypertensive drug treatment was last updated prior to the publication of this research and does not recommend a time of day to give the medication. 2 With the results seeming almost too good to be true -the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) Journal Watch, a sibling publication to the NEJM, reviewed the article.They made the point that ideally the trial would be replicated; however, given the significant difference in adverse outcome with morning dosing, they questioned whether it would be ethically sound to randomise patients to the morning dosing arm.Ultimately, they felt recommending that patients take oncedaily antihypertensive drugs in the evening was reasonable.3 Nature Reviews Cardiology has also acknowledged that, while the mechanism is unclear, the time of dosing is important for blood pressure control and protection against cardiovascular disease.4 Given these findings, I'd encourage fellow clinicians to consider recommending patients to take their antihypertensives at night.The question is now whether future guidelines will take note of this trial and recommend night dosing of antihypertensives.

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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.996
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0140.017
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0080.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.037

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of General PracticeSame topicHistory of Computing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207