MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Better Outcomes for Patients Treated at Hospitals That Participate in Clinical Trials

2008· article· en· W2115827170 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Internal Medicine · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersFondation pour la Recherche MédicaleDuke Clinical Research InstituteBristol-Myers SquibbUniversity of AlbertaSanofiCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeConfidence intervalInternal medicineAcute coronary syndromeGuidelineClinical trialEmergency medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Barriers to institutions participating in clinical trials include concerns about harms and costs. However, we hypothesized that patients treated at hospitals participating in trials would have better outcomes than patients treated at nonparticipating hospitals. We tested this hypothesis in 494 CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines) hospitals treating 174 062 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: Hospitals were classified into tertiles by percentage of patients concurrently enrolled in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome trials. Outcomes were use of composite guideline-indicated care and in-hospital mortality. Multivariate regression was used to examine the association between hospital trial participation and outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 4590 patients (2.6%) were enrolled in trials, ranging from 0% (145 hospitals) to low-enrollment tertile (1.0%; interquartile range [IQR], 0.5%-1.4%; n=226) to high-enrollment tertile (4.9%; IQR, 3.5%-9.7%; n=123). The composite guideline adherence score increased with increasing tertiles of trial participation: 76.9% (IQR, 71.8%-81.3%) vs 78.3% (IQR, 73.2%-82.4%) vs 81.1% (IQR, 76.2%-84.1%) (adjusted P= .008). Hospitals that participated in trials had higher adjusted guideline adherence than nonparticipating hospitals (low enrollment, 0.8% greater [95% confidence interval {CI}, -0.9% to 2.6%]; and high enrollment, 2.5% greater [95% CI, 0.5%-4.5%]). In-hospital mortality decreased with increasing trial participation: 5.9% vs 4.4% vs 3.5% (adjusted P= .003). Patients treated at hospitals that participated in trials had significantly lower mortality than patients treated at nonparticipating hospitals (low enrollment adjusted odds, 0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.0]; and high enrollment adjusted odds, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.7-0.9]). CONCLUSIONS: The CRUSADE hospitals enrolled less than 3% of their patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome into trials, and one-third never participated in trials. Compared with hospitals that do not participate in trials, those hospitals that do participate in trials seem to provide better care and to have lower mortality.

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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.111
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.111
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.604
GPT teacher head0.616
Teacher spread0.012 · 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