Interpreting risk reduction in clinical trials for pulmonary arterial hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of scepticism concerning study results when relying solely on relative effect estimates, the number needed to treat (NNT) has been used extensively to quantify the net clinical benefit of an intervention, and is reported increasingly in randomised trials and observational studies. This method is a simple measure representing the number of patients who would need to be treated to prevent one additional adverse event. However, like relative risk, the NNT is an inherently time-dependent measure. Thus, its calculation may lead to misleading interpretations, especially for studies involving varying follow-up times or recurrent outcomes. In addition to study duration and the efficacy of the therapy and the comparator, multiple other factors directly influence the NNT and should be taken into account in its interpretation as for comparative effectiveness of therapies. Its accurate estimation and interpretation, as well as its limitations, are therefore crucial to avoid erroneous clinical and public health decisions. We discuss the calculation and the interpretation of risk reduction and the NNT in the context of the changing landscape of clinical trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension.
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 | 0.276 | 0.591 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".