Blood pressure lowering efficacy of clonidine for primary hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: Primary objective To assess the dose‐related effect of clonidine as compared to placebo on systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients with primary hypertension. To assess the dose‐related effect of clonidine as compared to placebo on systolic and diastolic blood pressure in postmenopausal women with hot flashes without hypertension To assess the dose‐related effect of clonidine as compared to placebo on systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients treated for opoid withdrawal without hypertension To assess the dose‐related effect of clonidine as compared to placebo on systolic and diastolic blood pressure in patients treated for alcohol addiction without hypertension Secondary objectives To assess the dose‐related effect of clonidine on heart rate. To assess the effect of clonidine on pulse pressure. To assess the effect of clonidine on blood pressure variability. To assess the effect of clonidine on withdrawals due to adverse effects.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".