Achieved Blood Pressures in the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) Study: Challenges and Lessons Learned
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Lowering blood pressure (BP) after stroke remains a challenge, even in the context of clinical trials. The Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) BP protocol, BP management during the study, and achieved BPs are described here. METHODS: Patients with recent symptomatic lacunar stroke were randomized to 1 of 2 levels of systolic BP (SBP) targets: lower: <130mm Hg, or higher: 130-149mm Hg. SBP management over the course of the trial was examined by race/ethnicity and other baseline conditions. RESULTS: Mean SBP decreased for both groups from baseline to the last follow-up, from 142.4 to 126.7mm Hg for the lower SBP target group and from 143.6 to 137.4mm Hg for the higher SBP target group. At baseline, participants in both groups used an average of 1.7±1.2 antihypertensive medications, which increased to a mean of 2.4±1.4 (lower group) and 1.8±1.4 (higher group) by the end-study visit. It took an average of 6 months for patients to reach their SBP target, sustained to the last follow-up. Black participants had the highest proportion of SBP ≥150mm Hg at both study entry (40%) and end-study visit (17%), as compared with whites (9%) and Hispanics (11%). CONCLUSIONS: These results show that it is possible to safely lower BP even to a SBP goal <130mm Hg in a variety of patients and settings, including private and academic centers in multiple countries. This provides further support for protocol-driven care in lowering BP and consequently reducing the burden of stroke.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".