Abstract WMP107: Factors Affecting Time to Achieve Assigned Blood Pressure Targets in the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The NIH-funded SPS3 study examined two targets of systolic blood pressure (SBP) control for prevention of recurrent stroke: usual (130-149 mmHg) and intensive (<130 mmHg). Patients were recruited from the United States (US), Canada, Spain, and Latin America (LA). Evaluation of treatment efficacy depends upon the ability to achieve assigned SBP control levels. We examined regional differences and patient characteristics influencing time to achieve target. METHODS: Cox proportional hazards models were used to model time to achieve in-target status, defined as two consecutive visits within assigned range. Regional effects were tested along with patient gender, age, medical indications, baseline SBP, and size of recruitment center. Scheduled SBP check attendance, active study participation and compliance status, and number of antihypertensive medications over time were also examined. RESULTS: SPS3 recruited 3020 patients and SBP target groups were examined separately. Target was achieved after a median of 3 months in each group. Patients in LA achieved intensive control more quickly than in US (HR=1.45, 95% CI: 1.26-1.68); no regional differences were found for usual group. For intensive group, diabetes, higher baseline SBP and medications were associated with delayed control; large sites with increased control (Table). Male gender, active participation and compliance, and attendance of scheduled visits were associated with increased control in both groups (Table). CONCLUSIONS: LA patients achieved intensive control more quickly than US patients but no other regional effects are noted. Adherence to scheduled visits and actively compliant study participation are the greatest indicators of target achievement. These results may aid planning and implementation of future international hypertension trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".