Early Blood Pressure Lowering Does Not Reduce Growth of Intraventricular Hemorrhage following Acute Intracerebral Hemorrhage: Results of the INTERACT Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) extension is common following acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) and is associated with poor prognosis. AIM: To determine whether intensive blood pressure (BP)-lowering therapy reduces IVH growth. METHODS: Pooled analyses of the Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Hemorrhage Trials (INTERACT1 and INTERACT2) computed tomography (CT) substudies; multicenter, open, controlled, randomized trials of patients with acute spontaneous ICH and elevated systolic BP, randomly assigned to intensive (<140 mm Hg) or guideline-based (<180 mm Hg) BP management. Participants had blinded central analyses of baseline and 24-hour CT. Association of BP lowering to IVH growth was assessed in analysis of covariance. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in adjusted mean IVH growth following intensive (n = 228) compared to guideline-recommended (n = 228) BP treatment (1.6 versus 2.2 ml, respectively; p = 0.56). Adjusted mean IVH growth was nonsignificantly greater in patients with a mean achieved systolic BP ≥160 mm Hg over 24 h (3.94 ml; p trend = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Early intensive BP-lowering treatment had no clear effect on IVH in acute ICH.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".