MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900413666 · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2018.10.010

Characterization of cardiovascular clinical events and impact of event adjudication on the treatment effect of darapladib versus placebo in patients with stable coronary heart disease: Insights from the STABILITY trial

2018· article· en· W2900413666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claes Held, Harvey D. White, Ralph Stewart, Richard Davies, Shani H Sampson, Karen Chiswell, A Silverstein, Renato D. Lópes, Ulrika Heldestad, Andrzej Budaj, Kenneth W. Mahaffey, Lars Wallentin

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMerck Sharp and DohmeGeorge Institute for Global HealthIntarcia TherapeuticsNational Institutes of HealthMedtronicRocheSanofiMerckGlaxoSmithKlineBoehringer IngelheimAmgenPfizerBayerAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineConcordanceUnstable anginaClinical endpointPlaceboHeart failureCardiologyStroke (engine)Clinical trialMyocardial infarctionAnginaCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyConfidence intervalPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical Endpoint Classification (CEC) in clinical trials allows FOR standardized, systematic, blinded, and unbiased adjudication of investigator-reported events. We quantified the agreement rates in the STABILITY trial on 15,828 patients with stable coronary heart disease. METHODS: Investigators were instructed to report all potential events. Each reported event was reviewed independently by 2 reviewers according to prespecified processes and prespecified end point definitions. Concordance between reported and adjudicated cardiovascular (CV) events was evaluated, as well as event classification influence on final study results. RESULTS: In total, CEC reviewed 7,096 events: 1,064 deaths (696 CV deaths), 958 myocardial infarctions (MI), 433 strokes, 182 transient ischemic attacks, 2,052 coronary revascularizations, 1,407 hospitalizations for unstable angina, and 967 hospitalizations for heart failure. In total, 71.8% events were confirmed by CEC. Concordance was high (>80%) for cause of death and nonfatal MI and lower for hospitalization for unstable angina (25%) and heart failure (50%). For the primary outcome (composite of CV death, MI, and stroke), investigators reported 2,086 events with 82.5% confirmed by CEC. The STABILITY trial treatment effect of darapladib versus placebo on the primary outcome was consistent using investigator-reported events (hazard ratio 0.96 [95% CI 0.87-1.06]) or adjudicated events (hazard ratio 0.94 [95% CI 0.85-1.03]). CONCLUSIONS: The primary outcome results of the STABILITY trial were consistent whether using investigator-reported or CEC-adjudicated events. The proportion of investigator-reported events confirmed by CEC varied by type of event. These results should help improve event identification in clinical trials to optimize ascertainment and adjudication.

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)0.178
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.188
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1780.188
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Heart JournalSame topicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigationFrench-language works237,207