The rationale and design of the <scp>B</scp>eta‐blocker to <scp>LO</scp>wer <scp>CA</scp>rdiovascular <scp>D</scp>ialysis <scp>E</scp>vents (<scp>BLOCADE</scp>) <scp>F</scp>easibility <scp>S</scp>tudy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The Beta-blocker to LOwer CArdiovascular Dialysis Events (BLOCADE) Feasibility Study aims to determine the feasibility of a large-scale randomized controlled trial with clinical endpoints comparing the beta-blocking agent carvedilol with placebo in patients receiving dialysis. METHODS: The BLOCADE Feasibility Study is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group feasibility study comparing the beta-blocking agent carvedilol with placebo. Patients receiving dialysis for ≥3 months and who are aged ≥50 years, or who are ≥18 years and have diabetes or cardiovascular disease, were eligible. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants who complete a 6-week run-in phase in which all participants received carvedilol titrated from 3.125 mg twice daily to 6.25 mg twice daily. Other measures included how many patients are screened, the proportion recruited, the overall recruitment rate, the proportion of participants who remain on study drug for 12 months and the incidence of intra-dialytic hypotension while on randomized treatment. RESULTS: The BLOCADE Feasibility Study commenced recruiting in May 2011 and involves 11 sites in Australia and New Zealand. CONCLUSIONS: The BLOCADE Feasibility Study will inform the design of a larger clinical endpoint study to determine whether beta-blocking agents provide benefit to patients receiving dialysis, and define whether such a study is feasible.
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.
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 | 0.015 | 0.074 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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 it