MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388706653 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075588

REVISE: <i>R</i> e- <i>Ev</i> aluating the <i>I</i> nhibition of <i>S</i> tress <i>E</i> rosions in the ICU: a randomised trial protocol

2023· article· en· W4388706653 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Adam M. Deane, Waleed Alhazzani, Gordon Guyatt, Simon Finfer, John C. Marshall, John Myburgh, Nicole Zytaruk, M.J. Hardie, Lois Saunders, Serena Knowles, François Lauzier, Marianne J. Chapman, Shane English, John Muscedere, Yaseen M. Arabi, Marlies Ostermann, Balasubramanian Venkatesh, Paul J. Young, Lehana Thabane, Laurent Billot, Diane Heels‐Ansdell, Abdulrahman Al‐Fares, Naomi Hammond, Richard Hall, Dorrilyn Rajbhandari, Alexis Poole, Mobeen Iqbal, Gilmar Reis, Feng Xie

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Kidney Injury Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of OttawaUniversité LavalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonDalhousie UniversityUniversity of TorontoQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersHealth Research Council of New ZealandMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMinistry of National Guard Health AffairsNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMcMaster UniversityHeart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
KeywordsMedicineProtocol (science)Alternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The R e- Ev aluating the I nhibition of S tress E rosions (REVISE) Trial aims to determine the impact of the proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole compared with placebo on clinically important upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding in the intensive care unit (ICU), 90-day mortality and other endpoints in critically ill adults. The objective of this report is to describe the rationale, methodology, ethics and management of REVISE. Methods and analysis REVISE is an international, randomised, concealed, stratified, blinded parallel-group individual patient trial being conducted in ICUs in Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia, UK, US, Kuwait, Pakistan and Brazil. Patients≥18 years old expected to remain invasively mechanically ventilated beyond the calendar day after enrolment are being randomised to either 40 mg pantoprazole intravenously or an identical placebo daily while mechanically ventilated in the ICU. The primary efficacy outcome is clinically important upper GI bleeding within 90 days of randomisation. The primary safety outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile infection, new renal replacement therapy, ICU and hospital mortality, and patient-important GI bleeding. Tertiary outcomes are total red blood cells transfused, peak serum creatinine level in the ICU, and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital stay. The sample size is 4800 patients; one interim analysis was conducted after 2400 patients had complete 90-day follow-up; the Data Monitoring Committee recommended continuing the trial. Ethics and dissemination All participating centres receive research ethics approval before initiation by hospital, region or country, including, but not limited to – Australia: Northern Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee and Mater Misericordiae Ltd Human Research Ethics Committee; Brazil: Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa; Canada: Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board; Kuwait: Ministry of Health Standing Committee for Coordination of Health and Medical Research; Pakistan: Maroof Institutional Review Board; Saudi Arabia: Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs Institutional Review Board: United Kingdom: Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee; United States: Institutional Review Board of the Nebraska Medical Centre. The results of this trial will inform clinical practice and guidelines worldwide. Trial registration number NCT03374800 .

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.616

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.529
Teacher spread0.308 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicAcute Kidney Injury ResearchFrench-language works237,207