Results of the Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints (CONVINCE) trial by geographical region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine regional differences in the Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints (CONVINCE) trial. DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized, international clinical trial. SETTING: Six hundred and sixty-one clinical centers in 15 countries. PATIENTS: Hypertensive volunteers (n = 16,602) with > or =1 additional cardiovascular risk factor, grouped into four regions: USA (n = 8144), Canada (n = 3405), Western Europe (Spain, UK, Italy, Sweden, Germany; n = 2048) or 'other' (Bulgaria, Israel, Mexico, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Brazil; n = 2879); subgroupings included country and state/province within the USA and Canada. INTERVENTIONS: Randomized to COER-verapamil or the investigator's choice of either atenolol or hydrochlorothiazide, titrated and additional drugs added as required. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Baseline characteristics; blood pressure control, medication adherence and lost-to-follow-up at 2 years; and composite primary endpoint (stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death) by regional groupings. RESULTS: Regional differences were found at baseline for age, gender, blood pressure, percentage receiving antihypertensive drug therapy, initial choice of atenolol or hydrochlorothiazide, and risk factor profile. Blood pressure control rates increased markedly during follow-up in all regions, but varied significantly by region. Blood pressure control, medication adherence and lost-to-follow-up rates were poorest in the USA. After adjustment for baseline differences, the primary-event rate for each region was significantly lower than for the USA. Although baseline factors, blood pressure control and event rates varied by region, treatment differences did not. CONCLUSION: Despite differences in baseline and follow-up measures across geographical regions, the absence of treatment differences by region suggests that the overall findings of CONVINCE are robust.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".