EFICACIA DEL TRATAMIENTO CON ENALAPRIL FRENTE LOSARTAN EN PACIENTES ADULTOS RENALES CRÓNICOS PARA EL CONTROL DE LA HIPERTENSIÓN ARTERIAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Systematically analyze the evidence on the effectiveness of treatment with enalapril versus losartan in chronic renal adult patients for the control of arterial hypertension.Material and Methods: This systematic review consists of 11 scientific articles that were found in the following databases: Epistemonikos and Pubmed.Among the 11 evidences the type of research belongs the 72.73% (8/11) systematic review, 18.18% (2/11) cohort study and a 9.09% (1/11) randomized controlled clinical trials.36.37% of the evidence found is from EE. Followed by 18.18% of China, 18.18% Italy, 9.09% Kenya, 9.09% Canada and 9.09% Switzerland.Of which 81.82% (9 of 10) are of high quality and 18.18% (2 of 10) they are of moderate quality.Results: Of the evidences found, 81.82% (n = 9/11) of the evidence found are effective for the treatment of hypertension arterial for patients with chronic renal disease.9.09% (n = 1/11) shows that Enalapril is more effective than Losartan and 9.09% (n = 1/11) shows that Losartan is more effective than Enalapril.Conclusion: Enalapril as well as losartan are effective for the control of arterial hypertension in chronic renal adult patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".