MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085989892 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000000254

Blood pressure and LDL-cholesterol targets for prevention of recurrent strokes and cognitive decline in the hypertensive patient

2014· article· en· W2085989892 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alberto Zanchetti, Lisheng Liu, Giuseppe Mancia, Gianfranco Parati, Guıdo Grassı, Marco Stramba‐Badiale, Vincenzo Silani, Grzegorz Bilo, Giovanni Corrao, Antonella Zambon, Lorenza Scotti, Xinhua Zhang, HayYan Wang, Yuqing Zhang, Xuezhong Zhang, Ting Guan, Eivind Berge, Josep Redón, Krzysztof Narkiewicz, Anna F. Dominiczak, Peter M. Nilsson, Margus Viigimaa, Stéphane Laurent, Enrico Agabiti‐Rosei, Zhaosu Wu, Dingliang Zhu, José L. Rodicio, Luís M. Ruilope, Nieves Martell‐Claros, Fernando Campos Gomes Pinto, Roland E. Schmieder, Michel Burnier, Maciej Banach, Renata Cífková, Csaba Farsang, А. О. Конради, I. Lazareva, Yu.M. Sіrenko, Maria Dorobanţu, Arman Postadzhiyan, Rok Accetto, Bojan Jelaković, Dragan Lović, Athanasios Manolis, Philippos Stylianou, Serap Erdine, Dror Dicker, Gangzhi Wei, Chengbin Xu, Hengge Xie, António Coca, John T. O’Brien, Gary A. Ford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Ischemic Stroke Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIstituto Auxologico ItalianoUniversità degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureLdl cholesterolCholesterolCognitive declineInternal medicineCognitionCardiologyPsychiatryDementia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The SBP values to be achieved by antihypertensive therapy in order to maximize reduction of cardiovascular outcomes are unknown; neither is it clear whether in patients with a previous cardiovascular event, the optimal values are lower than in the low-to-moderate risk hypertensive patients, or a more cautious blood pressure (BP) reduction should be obtained. Because of the uncertainty whether 'the lower the better' or the 'J-curve' hypothesis is correct, the European Society of Hypertension and the Chinese Hypertension League have promoted a randomized trial comparing antihypertensive treatment strategies aiming at three different SBP targets in hypertensive patients with a recent stroke or transient ischaemic attack. As the optimal level of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level is also unknown in these patients, LDL-C-lowering has been included in the design. PROTOCOL DESIGN: The European Society of Hypertension-Chinese Hypertension League Stroke in Hypertension Optimal Treatment trial is a prospective multinational, randomized trial with a 3 × 2 factorial design comparing: three different SBP targets (1, <145-135; 2, <135-125; 3, <125 mmHg); two different LDL-C targets (target A, 2.8-1.8; target B, <1.8 mmol/l). The trial is to be conducted on 7500 patients aged at least 65 years (2500 in Europe, 5000 in China) with hypertension and a stroke or transient ischaemic attack 1-6 months before randomization. Antihypertensive and statin treatments will be initiated or modified using suitable registered agents chosen by the investigators, in order to maintain patients within the randomized SBP and LDL-C windows. All patients will be followed up every 3 months for BP and every 6 months for LDL-C. Ambulatory BP will be measured yearly. OUTCOMES: Primary outcome is time to stroke (fatal and non-fatal). Important secondary outcomes are: time to first major cardiovascular event; cognitive decline (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and dementia. All major outcomes will be adjudicated by committees blind to randomized allocation. A Data and Safety Monitoring Board has open access to data and can recommend trial interruption for safety. SAMPLE SIZE CALCULATION: It has been calculated that 925 patients would reach the primary outcome after a mean 4-year follow-up, and this should provide at least 80% power to detect a 25% stroke difference between SBP targets and a 20% difference between LDL-C targets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations75
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicAcute Ischemic Stroke ManagementFrench-language works237,207