Intensive versus guideline‐recommended blood pressure reduction in acute lacunar stroke with intravenous thrombolysis therapy: The ENCHANTED trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and purpose This was an investigation of the differential effects of early intensive versus guideline‐recommended blood pressure (BP) lowering between lacunar and non‐lacunar acute ischaemic stroke (AIS) in the BP arm of the Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke Study (ENCHANTED). Methods In 1,632 participants classified as having definite or probable lacunar ( n = 454 [27.8%]) or non‐lacunar AIS according to pre‐specified definitions based upon clinical and adjudicated imaging findings, mean BP changes over days 0–7 were plotted, and systolic BP differences by treatment between subgroups were estimated in generalized linear models. Logistic regression models were used to estimate the BP treatment effects on 90‐day outcomes (primary, an ordinal shift of modified Rankin scale scores) across lacunar and non‐lacunar AIS after adjustment for baseline covariables. Results Most baseline characteristics, acute BP and other management differed between lacunar and non‐lacunar AIS, but mean systolic BP differences by treatment were comparable at each time point (all p interaction > 0.12) and over 24 h post‐randomization (−5.5, 95% CI −6.5, −4.4 mmHg in lacunar AIS vs. −5.6, 95% CI −6.3, −4.8 mmHg in non‐lacunar AIS, p interaction = 0.93). The neutral effect of intensive BP lowering on functional outcome and the beneficial effect on intracranial haemorrhage were similar for the two subgroups (all p interaction > 0.19). Conclusions There were no differences in the treatment effect of early intensive versus guideline‐recommended BP lowering across lacunar and non‐lacunar AIS.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".