Abstracts from the 10th International Conference for Healthcare and Medical Students (ICHAMS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
in patients who took ARBs, diuretics and/or CCB but the smallest number was shown in patients who took ACEi in combination with moxonidine (-20.07%).22.02% of smokers were non-dippers (-54.67%non-smokers).Odds ratio for getting hypertensive emergency in case patient had a non-dipper profile was 4.18 (Confidence Interval 1.02 -18.89, p < 0.05).Patients taking different medication (or none) did not have an increased chance for hypertensive emergency development (Odds Ratio 1.21, p = Not Significant).We didn't find any differences in the non-dipping profile incidence between genders (72.12% males, 72.83% females). ConclusionCombinations of all antihypertensive medication showed benefit over monotherapy.Higher 24-hour and nighttime blood pressure (non-dipping profile) was significantly associated with greater change for developing hypertensive emergency. O2.YouTube videos on hands-only (compression-only) cardiopulmonary resuscitation
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.306 | 0.100 |
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".