MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213412556 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-059711

Bedtime versus morning use of antihypertensives for cardiovascular risk reduction (BedMed): protocol for a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point pragmatic trial

2022· article· en· W4213412556 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Scott Garrison, Michael R. Kolber, G. Michael Allan, Jeffrey A. Bakal, Lee A. Green, Alexander Singer, Darryl R Trueman, Finlay A. McAlister, Raj Padwal, Michael D. Hill, Braden Manns, Kimberlyn McGrail, Braden O’Neill, Michelle Greiver, Liesbeth Froentjes, Donna Manca, Dee Mangin, Sabrina T. Wong, Cathy MacLean, Jessica Kirkwood, Rita McCracken, James McCormack, Colleen M. Norris, Tina Korownyk

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoProvidence Health CareUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of British ColumbiaMcMaster UniversityAlberta Health ServicesUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta InnovatesAlberta Innovates - Health Solutions
KeywordsMedicineBedtimeBlood pressureStroke (engine)Clinical endpointEmergency medicinePhysical therapyAcute coronary syndromeMorningMyocardial infarctionRandomized controlled trialInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Sleep-time blood pressure correlates more strongly with adverse cardiovascular events than does daytime blood pressure. The BedMed trial evaluates whether bedtime antihypertensive administration, as compared with conventional morning use, reduces major adverse cardiovascular events. Methods and analysis Design Prospective randomised, open-label, blinded end-point trial. Participants Hypertensive primary care patients using blood pressure lowering medication and free from glaucoma. Setting Community primary care providers in 5 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario) are mailing invitations to their eligible patients. Social media campaigns (Google, Facebook) are additionally running in the same provinces. Intervention Consenting participants are allocated via central randomisation to bedtime vs morning use of all antihypertensives. Follow-up (1) Telephone or email questionnaire at 1 week, 6 weeks, 6 months and every 6 months thereafter, and (2) accessing linked governmental healthcare databases tracking hospital and community medical services. Primary outcome Composite of all-cause death, or hospitalisation for myocardial infarction/acute-coronary syndrome, stroke or congestive heart failure. Secondary outcomes Each primary outcome element on its own, all-cause hospitalisation or emergency department visit, long-term care admission, non-vertebral fracture, new glaucoma diagnosis, 18-month cognitive decline from baseline (via Short Blessed Test). Select other outcomes Self-reported nocturia burden at 6 weeks and 6 months (no, minor or major burden), 1-year self-reported overall health score (EQ-5D-5L), self-reported falls, total cost of care (acute and community over study duration) and mean sleep-time systolic blood pressure after 6 months (via 24-hour monitor in a subset of 302 sequential participants). Primary outcome analysis Cox proportional hazards survival analysis. Sample size The trial will continue until a projected 254 primary outcome events have occurred. Current status Enrolment ongoing (3227 randomised to date). Ethics and dissemination BedMed has ethics approval from six research ethics review boards and will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal. Trial registration number NCT02990663 .

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)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0080.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.006
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0080.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.020

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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.163 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations38
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207