MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045288665 · doi:10.1097/hjh.0000000000002567

Visit-to-visit blood pressure variability and renal outcomes: results from ONTARGET and TRANSCEND trials

2020· article· en· W3045288665 on OpenAlexaff
Giuseppe Mancia, Helmut Schumacher, Michael Böhm, Johannes F.E. Mann, Josep Redón, Rita Facchetti, Roland E. Schmieder, Eva Lonn, Koon Teo, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hypertension · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRamiprilMicroalbuminuriaBlood pressureInternal medicineConfoundingRenal functionKidney diseaseCoefficient of variationCreatinineUrologyCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: There is conflicting evidence on whether in treated hypertensive patients the risk of renal outcomes is associated with visit-to-visit SBP variability. Furthermore, limited evidence is available on how important is SBP variability for prediction of renal outcomes compared with on-treatment mean SBP. We addressed these issues in 28 790 participants of the Ongoing Treatment Alone and in combination with Ramipril Global End point Trial and Telmisartan Randomized AssessmeNt Study in ACE iNtolerant Subjects with Cardiovascular Disease trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: SBP variability was expressed as the coefficient of variation of the mean with which it showed no relationship. SBP variability and mean values were obtained from five visits during the first 2 years of treatment after the end of the titration phase. Incidence of several renal outcomes (end-stage renal disease, doubling of serum creatinine, new microalbuminuria, new macroalbuminuria and their composite) was calculated from the third year of treatment onward. Patients were divided in quintiles of SBP-coefficient of variation (SBP-CV) or mean SBP, which exhibited superimposable mean blood pressure and SBP-CV values, respectively. A progressive increase of SBP-CV was not accompanied by a parallel increase in a widely adjusted (baseline and on-treatment confounders) risk of most renal outcomes (end-stage renal disease, new macroalbuminuria, new microalbuminuria and their composite) in the subsequent on-treatment years. In contrast, the adjusted risk of most renal outcomes increased progressively from the lowest to the highest quintile of on-treatment mean SBP. Progression from lowest to highest mean on-treatment SBP, but not SBP-CV, was also associated with a less frequent return to normoalbuminuria in patients with initial micro or macroalbuminuria. Renal outcome prediction was slightly improved by the combined use of SBP-CV and mean SBP quintiles. CONCLUSION: Visit-to-visit SBP variability had no major predictive value for the risk of renal outcomes, which, in contrast, was sensitively predicted by mean on-treatment SBP. A further slight increase in prediction of renal outcomes was seen by combining on-treatment mean SBP and variability.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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