MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392285863 · doi:10.1161/jaha.123.030613

Sex‐ and Gender‐Based Reporting in Antihypertensive Medication Literature Informing Hypertension Guidelines

2024· article· en· W4392285863 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nabilah Gulamhusein, Keila Turino Miranda, Sandra M. Dumanski, María Carlota González Bedat, Ifeoma Ulasi, Arvind Conjeevaram, Sofia B. Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSex and Gender in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsAlberta Kidney Disease NetworkMcGill UniversityLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineAntihypertensive drugFamily medicineInternal medicineBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the leading modifiable cardiovascular risk factor with recognized sex- and gender-based differences. We assessed the incorporation of sex and gender reporting in the antihypertensive medication literature informing hypertension guidelines. METHODS AND RESULTS: Literature cited in the International Society of Hypertension (2020), European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension (2018), American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (2017), Latin American Society of Hypertension (2017), Pan-African Society of Cardiology (2020), and Hypertension Canada (2020) guidelines was systematically reviewed. Observational studies, randomized controlled trials, and systematic reviews involving antihypertensive medications were included. Studies with participants of a single sex, guidelines, and commentaries were excluded. Data on study participation-to-prevalence ratio by sex, analysis of baseline demographics and study outcomes by sex, and stratification of adverse events by sex were extracted. Of 1659 unique citations, 331 studies met inclusion criteria. Of those, 81% reported the sex of participants, and 22% reported a male-to-female participation-to-prevalence ratio of 0.8 to 1.2. Three percent of studies stratified baseline characteristics by sex, and 20% considered sex during analysis through statistical adjustment or stratification. Although 32% of studies reported adverse events, only 0.6% stratified adverse events by sex. Most (58%) studies reporting sex/gender used sex and gender terms interchangeably. CONCLUSIONS: Incorporation of sex- and gender-based considerations in study population, analysis, or reporting of results and adverse events is not common in the antihypertensive medication literature informing international hypertension guidelines. Greater attention to sex- and gender-based factors in research is required to optimally inform management of hypertension.

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)0.174
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.554
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.922

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1740.554
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0370.029
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designObservational
DomainReporting
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart AssociationSame topicSex and Gender in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207