The intracerebral hemorrhage acutely decreasing arterial pressure trial II (ICH ADAPT II) protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aggressively lowering blood pressure (BP) in acute intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) may improve outcome. Although there is no evidence that BP reduction changes cerebral blood flow, retrospective magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) studies have demonstrated sub-acute ischemic lesions in ICH patients. The primary aim of this study is to assess ischemic lesion development in patients randomized to two different BP treatment strategies. We hypothesize aggressive BP reduction is not associated with ischemic injury after ICH. METHODS: The Intracerebral Hemorrhage Acutely Decreasing Blood Pressure Trial II (ICH ADAPT II) is a phase II multi-centre randomized open-label, blinded-endpoint trial. Acute ICH patients (N = 270) are randomized to a systolic blood pressure (SBP) target of <140 or <180 mmHg. Acute ICH patients within 6 h of onset and two SBP measurements ≥140 mmHg recorded >2 mins apart qualify. SBP is managed with a pre-defined treatment protocol. Patients undergo MRI at 48 h, Days 7 and 30, with clinical assessment at Day 30 and 90. The primary outcome is diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) lesion frequency at 48 h. Secondary outcomes include cumulative DWI lesion rate frequency within 30 days, absolute hematoma growth, prediction of DWI lesion incidence, 30-day mortality rates, day 90 functional outcome, and cognitive status. DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the impact of hypertensive therapies on physiological markers of ischemic injury. The findings of this study will provide evidence for the link, or lack thereof, between BP reduction and ischemic injury in ICH patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered with clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02281838 , first received October 29, 2014).
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 | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.012 |
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".