MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946761073 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028698

Investigating the stratified efficacy and safety of pharmacological blood pressure-lowering: an overall protocol for individual patient-level data meta-analyses of over 300 000 randomised participants in the new phase of the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration (BPLTTC)

2019· article· en· W2946761073 on OpenAlexaff
Kazem Rahimi, Dexter Canoy, Milad Nazarzadeh, Gholamreza Salimi-Khorshidi, Mark Woodward, Koon Teo, Barry R. Davis, John Chalmers, Carl J. Pepine

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersOxford Martin School, University of Oxford
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Meta-analysisResearch ethicsRandomized controlled trialClinical trialBlood pressureSystematic reviewStroke (engine)MEDLINEAlternative medicineFamily medicineInternal medicinePathologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Previous research from the Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists' Collaboration (BPLTTC) and others has shown that pharmacological blood pressure (BP)- lowering substantially reduces the risk of major cardiovascular events, including ischaemic heart disease, heart failure and stroke. In this new phase, the aim is to conduct individual patient-level data (IPD) meta-analyses involving eligible BP-lowering randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to address uncertainties relating to efficacy and safety of BP-lowering treatment. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: RCTs investigating the effect of pharmacological BP-lowering, with a minimum of 1000 patient-years of follow-up in each trial arm, are eligible. Our systematic review identified 100 potentially eligible trials. We requested their investigators/sponsors to contribute baseline, follow-up and outcomes data. As of June 2018, the collaboration has obtained data from 49 trials (n=315 046 participants), with additional data currently in the process of being transferred from four RCTs (n=34 642 participants). In addition, data harmonisation has commenced. Scientific activities of the collaboration are overseen by the Steering Committee with input from all collaborators. Detailed protocols for individual meta-analyses will be developed and registered on public platforms. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been obtained for this new and extended phase of the BPLTTC, the largest collaboration of de-identified IPD from RCTs. It offers an efficient and ethical manner of re-purposing existing data to answer clinically important questions relating to BP treatment as well as methodological questions relating to IPD meta-analyses. Among the immediate impacts will include reliable quantification of effects of treatment modifiers, such as baseline BP, age and prior disease, on both vascular and non-vascular outcomes. Analyses will further assess the impact of BP-lowering on important, but less well understood, outcomes, such as new-onset diabetes and renal disease. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed medical journals on behalf of the collaboration.

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)0.219
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.324
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2190.324
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.048
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0110.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.006

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 head0.561
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.042 · 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.

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

Citations38
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207