Patterns of blood pressure response during intensive BP lowering and clinical events: results from the secondary prevention of small subcortical strokes trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: We applied cluster analysis to identify discrete patterns of concomitant responses of systolic (SBP), diastolic (DBP) and pulse pressure (PP) during intensive BP lowering; and to evaluate their clinical relevance and association with risk of mortality, major vascular events (MVEs), and stroke. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We used an unsupervised cluster procedure to identify distinct patterns of BP change during the first 9 months of anti-hypertensive therapy intensification among 1,331 participants in the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes Trial who were previously randomized to lower BP target (SBP < 130 mm Hg) after lacunar stroke. RESULTS: The cluster procedure partitioned participants into three groups in the lower SBP target arm, persons with: 1) mildly elevated baseline SBP and minimal visit-to-visit BP variability (mild reducers); 2) moderately elevated baseline SBP and moderate visit-to-visit BP variability (moderate reducers); and 3) very elevated baseline SBP with very large visit-to-visit BP variability during intensification (large reducers). In the lower SBP target group, moderate reducers had a higher risk of death (adjusted HR 1.6 [95% CI 1.0-2.7]), MVE (adjusted HR 2.1 [95% CI 1.4-3.2]), and stroke (adjusted HR 2.6[95% CI 1.7-4.1]) compared to mild reducers. Large reducers had the highest risk of death (adjusted HR 2.3 [95% CI 1.2-4.4]), but risk of MVE (HR = 1.7 [95%CI 0.9-3.1]) and stroke (HR = 1.6 [95%CI: 0.8-3.5]) were not statistically significantly different compared to mild reducers. CONCLUSIONS: Among persons with prior lacunar stroke, baseline BP levels, and BP variability in the setting of intensive BP lowering can identify discrete groups of persons at higher risk of adverse outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".