The Intracerebral Haemorrhage Acutely Decreasing Arterial Pressure Trial: ICH ADAPT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of intracerebral haemorrhage patients present with markedly elevated blood pressure immediately after symptom onset. Management of blood pressure in the first 24 h is extremely controversial and lends itself to two competing rationales. There is some evidence that early treatment may improve outcome, potentially by reducing the rate of haematoma expansion. It is also possible that this will reduce cerebral blood flow and therefore exacerbate the cerebral injury, particularly in the region surrounding the haematoma. Only a trial that includes both randomisation of patients to two different blood pressure management strategies and actual measurement of cerebral blood flow can effectively address this pressing debate. This is the only unequivocal way to demonstrate the haemodynamic effects of rapid blood pressure reduction. The Intracerebral Haemorrhage Acutely Decreasing Arterial Pressure Trial is designed to test the hypothesis that blood pressure reduction does not result in significant or harmful changes in cerebral blood flow in acute intracerebral haemorrhage. Two hours after randomisation to a systolic blood pressure target of <150 or <180 mmHg, cerebral blood flow is measured using computed tomography perfusion, which is the primary end-point of the trial. A study of this type is critical to establishing the safety of early blood pressure treatment and is necessary for planning larger efficacy trials in a rational manner. This trial is registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00963976).
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".