Withdrawal of active treatment after intracerebral haemorrhage in the INTERACT2 study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: in the second Intensive Blood Pressure Reduction in Acute Cerebral Haemorrhage Trial (INTERACT2), a minority of patients received withdrawal of active treatment (WAT). We wished to determine the characteristics of these patients, and the relation of this decision-making to subsequent management and final outcome. Methods: the INTERACT2 cohort of acute intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) patients had a decision of WAT within 7 days after hospital admission recorded. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of WAT and poor outcome at 90 days, defined by modified Rankin scale (mRS) scores 3-6. Results: of 2,779 participants with available data, WAT occurred in 121 (4%) and this was significantly associated with increasing age, greater neurological severity, larger haematoma volume, intraventricular extension and randomisation to intensive BP lowering. Compared to other patients, those with WAT had greater mortality (81/121 [67%] versus 205/2624 [8%]; P < 0.001) and survivors were more likely to be severely disabled (mRS score 4-5, 19/39 [49%] versus 695/2419 [29%]; P = 0.006). Conclusions: WAT was undertaken in patients with recognised predictors of poor prognosis, who subsequently were more likely to die or be left with severe disability. Improved understanding of specific factors determining WAT in ICH patients might improve care delivery and outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: the INTERACT2 study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00716079).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".