MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402364260 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000003855

Combination blood pressure lowering therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: messages from the ADVANCE trial

2024· review· en· W4402364260 on OpenAlexaff
Nelson Wang, John Chalmers, Katie Harris, Neil R Poulter, G. Mancia, Stephen Harrap, Pavel Hamet, Diederick E. Grobbee, Michel Marre, Mark Woodward

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersEfficacy and Mechanism Evaluation ProgrammeJulius ClinicalDiabetes UKNovo NordiskNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research CouncilDaiichi Sankyo EuropeSanofiAstraZenecaBritish Heart FoundationNational Health and Medical Research CouncilServierAmgen
KeywordsMedicineType 2 diabetesBlood pressureDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineIntensive care medicineCardiologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Action in Diabetes and Vascular disease: preterAx and diamicroN Controlled Evaluation (ADVANCE) trial investigated the effects of intensive blood pressure (BP) lowering using a fixed combination of perindopril-indapamide versus placebo in type 2 diabetes (T2D). The study showed that combination perindopril-indapamide had significant benefits in reducing cardiovascular, renal, and mortality events, with consistent relative risk reductions across different patient subgroups. Secondary analyses of ADVANCE have identified novel risk markers in T2D including cessation of BP lowering therapy, absent peripheral pulses and cardiac biomarkers to name a few. ADVANCE also shed light on practical aspects of hypertension management, including the limitations of office BP, tolerability of combination BP lowering therapy across the range of BP levels and the interpretation of changes in serum creatinine after treatment initiation. This review article summarizes the findings of ADVANCE and its subsequent substudies, which have been foundational in our understanding of BP management and the use of combination BP lowering therapy in T2D.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.247 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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