MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248088473 · doi:10.1161/circ.112.21.3362

Late-Breaking Clinical Trial Abstracts

2005· article· en· W4248088473 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan Williams, Olivier F. Bertrand, John H. Alexander

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPluripotent Stem Cells Research
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHeart failureInternal medicineCardiologyInotropeClinical trialIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brachial blood pressure (BP) measurements are used to monitor the efficacy of BP lowering drugs.Different BP lowering drugs could have differing effects on central aortic pressures and thus cardiovascular outcome, despite similar effects on brachial BP.The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) examined the impact of two blood pressure lowering regimens; conventional therapy (atenololϮthiazide), versus contemporary therapy (amlodipineϮperindopril) in 19,257 patients with hypertension.The CAFE ´study, a sub-study of ASCOT, provides the first analysis of the impact of two different BP lowering regimens on derived central aortic pressures and hemodynamics.Hypothesis: i) different BP-lowering regimens will produce different effects on central aortic pressures/hemodynamics despite similar brachial blood pressures, and ii) this would contribute to different clinical outcomes in ASCOT.Design/Methods: The CAFE study recruited 2,199 patients in 5 ASCOT study centres.CAFE baseline demographics were representative of the ASCOT population.Radial artery applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis (SphygmoCor © ) was used to derive central aortic pressures and hemodynamic indices.Over 17,000 central hemodynamic measurements were recorded on repeated visits, for up to 5 years.Results: Brachial BP differed little between treatment groups (-0.7/1.6mmHg, in favour of amlodipine).However, there were substantial reductions in trial-averaged values for central aortic pressures and hemodynamic indices in favour of the amlodipine regimen; central aortic systolic BP (-4.3mmHgϮ 0.5,Ͻ0.0001),central aortic pulse pressure (-3.0mmHgϮ 0.5, Ͻ0.0001) and augmentation index:(-5.8%Ϯ 0.4, Ͻ0.0001).In ASCOT, amlodipine-based treatment was associated with significant reductions in major cardiovascular and renal outcomes and death.In the CAFE cohort within ASCOT, central pulse pressure was a significant determinant of total cardiovascular and renal events/procedures, using a Cox proportional hazards model (unadjusted:pϽ0.0001,adjusted for baseline variables: pϽ0.05).Conclusion: The CAFE study demonstrates for the first time in a large clinical outcomes trial, that BP lowering drugs have profoundly different effects on central aortic pressures and hemodynamics, despite a similar impact on brachial blood pressure.Brachial BP is therefore, an imperfect surrogate for the effects of BP lowering drugs on central aortic pressures.Moreover, central pulse pressure appears to be an important determinant of clinical outcomes.These findings: i) provide a novel mechanism to explain the different clinical outcomes between the two BP-treatment arms in ASCOT and potentially other BP-lowering treatment trials, and ii) may have significant implications for treatment guidelines.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.323
Threshold uncertainty score0.965

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3230.082

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.305 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations6
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicPluripotent Stem Cells ResearchFrench-language works237,207