MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956133953 · doi:10.1177/1751143720938894

Evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of permissive hypotension in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension: Statistical and health economic analysis plan for the 65 trial in article

2020· article· en· W2956133953 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Thomas, Akshay J. Patel, Zia Sadique, Richard Grieve, Alexina J. Mason, Silvia Moler Zapata, Anthony Gordon, Kathy Rowan, Paul Mouncey, François Lamontagne, David A Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Intensive Care Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineCritically illRandomized controlled trialClinical trialPermissiveIntensive care medicineEconomic analysisBlood pressureAnesthesiaSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 65 trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised clinical trial of permissive hypotension (targeting a mean arterial pressure target of 60-65 mmHg during vasopressor therapy) versus usual care in critically ill patients aged 65 years or over with vasodilatory hypotension. The trial will recruit 2600 patients from 65 United Kingdom adult general critical care units. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at 90 days. An economic evaluation is embedded. This paper describes the proposed statistical and health economic analysis for the 65 trial.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.092
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.092
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Intensive Care SocietySame topicHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyFrench-language works237,207