MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

INTER-ARM DIFFERENCES IN BLOOD PRESSURE AND MORTALITY

2018· article· en· W2807244577 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher E Clark, Kate Boddy, Fiona C Warren, Sinéad T. J. McDonagh, R. Taylor, Victor Aboyans, Lyne Cloutier, Richard J. McManus, Angela C. Shore, John Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioConfidence intervalMeta-analysisRandom effects modelBlood pressureProportional hazards modelInternal medicineCohort studyDemographyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Study-level meta-analyses have associated inter-arm differences (IAD) in systolic blood pressure (SBP) with increased mortality. However key areas of investigation remain, such as determining the additional contribution of IAD to prognostic risk estimation for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality, and determining the minimum value for IAD that defines elevated risk. We are conducting an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to address these questions. Design and method: Systematic review and IPD meta-analysis; we identified prospective studies that measured SBP in both arms during recruitment, and invited contribution of eligible datasets to the Collaboration. Study datasets were cleaned and combined into a single dataset for analyses. A non-random sample of four datasets were reserved for model validation; remaining data were analysed in fixed effect 1-stage meta-analyses with multivariable time-to-event regression modelling. Analyses of IAD dichotomised using cut-offs by 1mmHg increments from 0 to 20 mmHg, adjusted for age, gender and baseline SBP, were compared to identify a lower limit of IAD associated with increased all-cause mortality using random effects 2-stage models. Scientific Data: Searches to January 2017 yielded 4448 unique citations, 152 full texts were screened, 60 potentially relevant datasets were identified and their authors contacted. Data from 24 studies (57,434 eligible individual adult patients) were received. Results: In complete case analysis of 35,900 records (the derivation cohort), absolute systolic IAD was associated with increased all-cause mortality: fully adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 1.01, 95% confidence interval (95%CI) 1.00 to 1.02 per mmHg of IAD. Other significant model variables were age, gender, baseline SBP, current smoking, total cholesterol, ethnicity, and diagnoses of hypertension or diabetes. Incremental analyses of 50,661 records showed increasing HRs associated with rising IAD cut-offs, and suggested that an IAD of 7 mmHg or more is associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality. Conclusions: This IPD meta-analysis confirms the role of systolic IAD as an independent risk marker for all-cause mortality, with a threshold of 7 mmHg as a lower limit for increased mortality risk. We continue to model cardiovascular outcomes and will present full results to the meeting.

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)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.040
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HypertensionSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207