Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent report of the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) trial, a randomized controlled clinical trial of secondary prevention of stroke targeting systolic blood pressures (BPs) <130 versus 130 to 149 mm Hg in patients with recent but not acute subcortical lacunar stroke,1 and the associated Comment2 conclude that €œAlthough the reduction in stroke was not significant, our results support that in patients with recent lacunar stroke, the use of a systolic-blood-pressure target of less than 130 mm Hg is likely to be beneficial. € 1 Indeed, the Comment underlined that €œthe SPS3 trial was underpowered to identify or exclude confidently a slight, but nevertheless clinically important, increase in serious complications of hypotension with systolic blood pressure lower than 130 mm Hg. € 2 However, the cover of August 10 to 16, 2013 issue of The Lancet that carries the article on SPS3 and the associated Comment reads €œThe implications of SPS3 are that clinicians should endeavour to achieve and maintain systolic blood pressures lower than 130 mm Hg in patients who have survived 2 weeks or more after subcortical lacunar ischemic stroke. € This assertion is essentially based on the consistency of results across subgroups, the consistency of results (19% reduction in events) with other studies of primary or secondary prevention of different types of stroke, at similar differences of systolic BP between groups, in this particular trial 11 mm Hg between the achieved BP of the high-target group (138 mm Hg) and the low-target group (127 mm Hg), among the 3020 subjects with MRI-proven lacunar strokes followed for 3 to 6 years.[...]
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".