MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4377023386 · doi:10.4330/wjc.v15.i5.262

Pharmacoepidemiologic study of association between apparent treatment resistant hypertension, cardiovascular disease and interaction effect by sex and age

2023· article· en· W4377023386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julianne Nelson, Longjian Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Cardiology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionProportional hazards modelObservational studyDiseaseInternal medicineDemographyUnstable anginaAngina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: A limited number of studies have been conducted to test the magnitudes of the association between apparent treatment resistant hypertension (aTRH) and risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). AIM: To investigate the association between aTRH and risk of CVD and examine whether sex and age modify this association. METHODS: = 25516) from 625 primary care settings throughout the United States, Canada, Puerto Rico, and United States Virgin Islands, aged 55 and older with hypertension and at least one additional risk factor for heart disease. aTRH was assessed from the year 2 visit. CVD event was defined as one of the following from the year 2 follow-up visit: Fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction, coronary revascularization, angina, stroke, heart failure, or peripheral artery disease. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to examine the effect of aTRH on CVD risk. Potential modifications of sex and age on this association were examined on the multiplicative scale by interaction term and additive scale by joint effects and relative excess risk for interaction. RESULTS: > 0.05). CONCLUSION: aTRH was significantly associated with an increased risk of CVD and this association was modified by both sex and age. Further studies are warranted to test these mechanisms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of CardiologySame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207