MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7029145221

Hipertensão no grande idoso: tratar ou não tratar?

2016· article· pt· W7029145221 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePortuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) · 2016
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldMedicine
TopicSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelinePopulationRelative riskPoison control
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introdução: A hipertensão arterial é o fator de risco cardiovascular mais prevalente. Sabe-se que a diminuição da pressão arterial (PA) em hipertensos com ≤65 anos reduz a ocorrência de eventos cardiovasculares e morte. Relativamente ao grande idoso (≥80 anos), ainda há poucos estudos que possam assegurar o mesmo consenso. Objetivos: Rever se existe evidência sobre se o tratamento anti-hipertensor conduz a diminuição de eventos cardiovasculares major, bem como a redução da mortalidade no grande idoso. Fontes de dados: National Guideline Clearinghouse, Guideline Finder, Canadian Medical Association, The Cochrane Database, DARE, Bandolier, MEDLINE/PubMed e Índex de Revistas Médicas Portuguesas. Métodos de revisão: Pesquisa em sites de medicina baseada na evidência; entre janeiro de 2004 e agosto de 2014; línguas inglesa, espanhola ou portuguesa; palavras-chave: Hypertension/therapy AND Aged, 80 and over. Resultados: Oito artigos cumpriam os critérios de inclusão. Segundo as normas, o tratamento anti-hipertensor reduz a incidência de acidente vascular cerebral (AVC) e morbilidade cardiovascular e aumenta a mortalidade por outras causas (FR C). Se há boa condição física e psicológica, os valores de PA devem rondar os 140-150mmHg (FR B); caso contrário, o tratamento deve ser individualizado (FR C). As meta-análises corroboram a redução do risco de AVC, eventos cardiovasculares e insuficiência cardíaca (IC) (NE 2). Os ensaios clínicos revelam benefício na redução da PA até 150/80mmHg (NE 1); valores inferiores a este associam-se a maior risco de morte cerebrovascular e IC (NE 2). Conclusão: O benefício global do tratamento no grande idoso é questionável, pois embora esteja associado a uma redução dos eventos cardiovasculares quanto à mortalidade total, bem como à mortalidade específica por causa, os resultados são heterogéneos (FR B). Salienta-se, contudo, o facto de a redução da mortalidade total ser conseguida nos ensaios com menores reduções da PA e terapêuticas menos intensivas (FR B).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePortuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)Same topicSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyFrench-language works237,207