MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176616064 · doi:10.2215/cjn.06370615

Lessons Learned from EVOLVE for Planning of Future Randomized Trials in Patients on Dialysis

2015· review· en· W2176616064 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick S. Parfrey, Geoffrey A. Block, Ricardo Correa‐Rotter, Tilman B. Drüeke, Jürgen Floege, Charles A. Herzog, Gérard M. London, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Sharon M. Moe, David C. Wheeler, Glenn M. Chertow

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDialysis and Renal Disease Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersAmgen
KeywordsMedicineCinacalcetRandomized controlled trialRandomizationClinical endpointClinical trialPopulationAdverse effectIntensive care medicineSecondary hyperparathyroidismDialysisInternal medicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The effect of the calcimimetic cinacalcet on cardiovascular disease in patients undergoing hemodialysis with secondary hyperparathyroidism was assessed in the Evaluation of Cinacalcet Hydrochloride Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events trial. This was the largest (in size) and longest (in duration) randomized controlled clinical trial undertaken in this population. During planning, execution, analysis, and reporting of the trial, many lessons were learned, including those related to the use of a composite cardiovascular primary endpoint, definition of endpoints (particularly heart failure and severe unremitting hyperparathyroidism), importance of age for optimal stratification at randomization, use of unadjusted and adjusted intention-to-treat analysis for the primary outcome, how to respond to a lower-than-predicted event rate during the trial, development of a prespecified analytic plan that accounted for nonadherence and for cointerventions that diminished the power of the trial to observe a treatment effect, determination of the credibility of a subgroup effect, use of adverse effects database to investigate rare diseases, collection of blood for biomarker measurement not designated before trial initiation, and interpretation of the benefits-to-harms ratio for individual patients. It is likely that many of these issues will arise in the planning of future trials in CKD.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.242
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.315
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2420.315
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0110.019
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0130.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.290
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.213 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicDialysis and Renal Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207