MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034808080 · doi:10.2337/db20-1421-p

1421-P: The Impact of Blood Pressure on Risk of Death Is Influenced by Prior Cardiovascular Disease in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and a Recent Coronary Event

2020· article· en· W3034808080 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Magnus Wijkman, Brian Claggett, Rafael Díaz, Hertzel C. Gerstein, Lars Køber, Eldrin Lewis, Aldo P. Maggioni, Emil Wolsk, David Aguilar, Rhonda Bentley–Lewis, John J.V. McMurray, Jeffrey L. Probstfield, Matthew C. Riddle, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Scott Solomon, Marc A. Pfeffer

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineBlood pressureMyocardial infarctionAcute coronary syndromeCardiologyDiabetes mellitusHeart failureType 2 diabetesProportional hazards modelStroke (engine)CreatinineConfidence intervalEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between blood pressure and mortality in T2DM is controversial, with concern for increased risk associated with lower blood pressure. We evaluated whether prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) altered the relationship between baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP) and mortality in 5852 patients with T2DM who, as required for entry to the ELIXA (Evaluation of Lixisenatide in Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial, had a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Risk of death was assessed in a Cox model that adjusted for age, sex, race, heart rate, BMI, smoking, diabetes duration, insulin use, HbA1c, eGFR, natriuretic peptide (BNP) and urine albumin/creatinine at baseline. Overall there was no significant association between SBP and risk of death (P=0.20), but in 2325 patients with additional CVD (index ACS + at least one of the following prior to randomization: myocardial infarction other than the index ACS, stroke or heart failure) there was a significant association between lower SBP and higher risk of death (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg lower SBP 1.13; 95% CI 1.05 to 1.23) whereas in 3527 patients with only the index ACS no association was observed (hazard ratio per 10 mmHg lower SBP 0.95; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.04, P for interaction <0.001). In ELIXA participants, an association between lower SBP and higher risk of death was seen only in patients with additional CVD. Disclosure M.O. Wijkman: None. B. Claggett: None. R. Diaz: None. H.C. Gerstein: Advisory Panel; Self; Abbott, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Consultant; Self; Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Merck & Co., Inc., Novo Nordisk Inc., Sanofi. Other Relationship; Self; Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd., Eli Lilly and Company, Sanofi. L. Kober: Speaker’s Bureau; Self; AstraZeneca, Novartis AG. Other Relationship; Self; AstraZeneca. E. Lewis: Consultant; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Research Support; Self; Amgen, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Theracos, Inc. A.P. Maggioni: None. E. Wolsk: None. D. Aguilar: None. R. Bentley-Lewis: Consultant; Self; Novo Nordisk Inc. Research Support; Self; Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. J.J. McMurray: Other Relationship; Self; AbbVie Inc., Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cardurion, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Theracos, Inc. J.L. Probstfield: None. M.C. Riddle: Consultant; Self; ADOCIA, Dance Biopharm Holdings, Inc., GlaxoSmithKline plc., Sanofi US, Theracos, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly and Company, Novo Nordisk Inc. J. Tardif: Research Support; Self; Esperion Therapeutics, Inc., Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., REGENXBIO Inc., Sanofi, Servier. Other Relationship; Self; Amarin Corporation, AstraZeneca, DalCor Pharmaceuticals. S. Solomon: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, Theracos, Inc. Research Support; Self; AstraZeneca, Theracos, Inc. M.A. Pfeffer: Consultant; Self; AstraZeneca, CinCor, Correvio, Corvidia, DalCor Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline plc., Innovative Science, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, MyoKardia, Inc., Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Novo Nordisk Inc., PharmaScience, Sanofi US, Servier, Takeda Development Center Americas, Inc. Research Support; Self; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. Funding Sanofi (NCT01147250)

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiabetesSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207