Chlorthalidone Versus Hydrochlorothiazide for the Treatment of Hypertension in Older Adults A Population-Based Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
superior to hydrochlorothiazide for the treatment of hypertension. Objective: To compare the effectiveness and safety of chlorthali-done and hydrochlorothiazide in older adults. Design: Propensity score–matched observational cohort study with up to 5 years of follow-up. Setting: Ontario, Canada. Patients: All individuals aged 66 years or older who were newly treated with chlorthalidone or hydrochlorothiazide and were not hospitalized for heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction in the prior year were eligible for inclusion. Each chlorthalidone recipient was matched to up to 2 hydrochlorothiazide recipients on the basis of age, sex, year of treatment initiation, and propensity score. Measurements: The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospitalization for heart failure, stroke, or myocardial infarction. Safety outcomes included hospitalization with hypokalemia or
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".