MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3155178378 · doi:10.1002/lio2.561

Weekly epistaxis duration as an indicator of epistaxis severity in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia—Preliminary results from a randomized controlled trial

2021· article· en· W3155178378 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Wu, John M. Lee, Nicholas T. Vozoris, Marie E. Faughnan

Bibliographic record

VenueLaryngoscope Investigative Otolaryngology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Anomalies and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboTelangiectasiaRandomized controlled trialClinical trialQuality of life (healthcare)SurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: There is great interest in developing and studying novel therapies for epistaxis in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT) given its associated morbidity and impact on patients' quality of life. Several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been negative, likely attributed to poorly characterized outcome measures. This study reported on and evaluated an epistaxis outcome measure, weekly epistaxis duration (WED) in an ongoing RCT, with the aim of better characterizing the measurement of epistaxis for clinical trials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients were recruited to an ongoing phase II, double-blind, cross-over RCTs of oral doxycycline for HHT-associated epistaxis. Patients were included for the epistaxis measures analysis if they had already completed the initial 3-month run-in period, and had received treatment of either study drug doxycycline or placebo for a minimum of 6 months. The primary measure of interest was patient-reported outcome (PRO)-WED, captured from prospective daily diaries. Epistaxis severity score (ESS) was collected as a secondary outcome. RESULTS: Seven patients were included for analysis, with 98% completion of the daily diary. The average PRO-WED across all patients was 85.0 minutes, SD 93.2 at baseline, and 65.6 minutes, SD 59.5 during treatment/placebo. Coefficient of variance for PRO-WED at baseline and during treatment/placebo was 0.49, SD 0.1 and 0.58, SD 0.2, respectively. Statistically significant changes in the mean PRO-WED from baseline to treatment/placebo was noted in six patients (86%). Only two patients (29%) had a significant change in ESS, with both reporting decreased (improved) scores after treatment/placebo as compared to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: PRO-WED was a feasible clinical trials measure, was reasonably stable during baseline measurement, and appeared to be variable with treatment state, suggesting it may provide a sensitive clinical trials PRO in HHT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLaryngoscope Investigative OtolaryngologySame topicVascular Anomalies and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207