The Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study pilot trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 'less tight' (versus 'tight') control of nonsevere hypertension results in a difference in diastolic blood pressure (dBP) between groups. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN#57277508). SETTING: Seventeen obstetric centres in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and UK. POPULATION: Inclusion: pregnant women, dBP 90-109 mmHg, pre-existing/gestational hypertension; live fetus(es); and 20-33(+6) weeks. Exclusion: systolic blood pressure > or = 170 mmHg and proteinuria, contraindication, or major fetal anomaly. METHODS: Randomisation to less tight (target dBP, 100 mmHg) or tight (target dBP, 85 mmHg) blood pressure control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: mean dBP at 28, 32 and 36 weeks. Secondary: clinician compliance and women's satisfaction. Other: serious perinatal and maternal complications. RESULTS: A total of 132 women were randomised to less tight (n = 66; seven had no study visit) or tight control (n= 66; one was lost to follow up; seven had no study visit). Mean dBP was significantly lower with tight control: -3.5 mmHg, 95% credible interval (-6.4, -0.6). Clinician compliance was 79% in both groups. Women were satisfied with their care. With less tight (versus tight) control, the rates of other treatments and outcomes were the following: post-randomisation antenatal antihypertensive medication use: 46 (69.7%) versus 58 (89.2%), severe hypertension: 38 (57.6%) versus 26 (40.0%), proteinuria: 16 (24.2%) versus 20 (30.8%), serious maternal complications: 3 (4.6%) versus 2 (3.1%), preterm birth: 24 (36.4%) versus 26 (40.0%), birthweight: 2675 +/- 858 versus 2501 +/- 855 g, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission: 15 (22.7%) versus 22 (34.4%), and serious perinatal complications: 9 (13.6%) versus 14 (21.5%). CONCLUSION: The CHIPS pilot trial confirms the feasibility and importance of a large definitive trial to determine the effects of less tight control on serious perinatal and maternal complications.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".