MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2725353363 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016844

Associations between interarm differences in blood pressure and cardiovascular disease outcomes: protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis and development of a prognostic algorithm

2017· article· en· W2725353363 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher E Clark, Kate Boddy, Fiona C Warren, Rod S Taylor, Victor Aboyans, Lyne Cloutier, Richard J. McManus, Angela C. Shore

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisBlood pressureProtocol (science)DiseasePopulationCohort studyCohortMEDLINEIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineAlternative medicinePathologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Individual cohort studies in various populations and study-level meta-analyses have shown interarm differences (IAD) in blood pressure to be associated with increased cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. However, key questions remain, such as follows: (1) What is the additional contribution of IAD to prognostic risk estimation for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality? (2) What is the minimum cut-off value for IAD that defines elevated risk? (3) Is there a prognostic value of IAD and do different methods of IAD measurement impact on the prognostic value of IAD? We aim to address these questions by conducting an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will identify prospective cohort studies that measured blood pressure in both arms during recruitment, and invite authors to contribute IPD datasets to this collaboration. All patient data received will be combined into a single dataset. Using one-stage meta-analysis, we will undertake multivariable time-to-event regression modelling, with the aim of developing a new prognostic model for cardiovascular risk estimation that includes IAD. We will explore variations in risk contribution of IAD across predefined population subgroups (eg, hypertensives, diabetics), establish the lower limit of IAD that is associated with additional cardiovascular risk and assess the impact of different methods of IAD measurement on risk prediction. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will not include any patient identifiable data. Included datasets will already have ethical approval and consent from their sponsors. Findings will be presented to international conferences and published in peer reviewed journals, and we have a comprehensive dissemination strategy in place with integrated patient and public involvement. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42015031227.

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)0.098
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.175
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0980.175
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.027
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0050.004
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0570.009

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 head0.482
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.022 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→