MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392059441 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074954

Randomised, blinded, cross-over evaluation of the palatability of and preference for different potassium binders in participants with chronic hyperkalaemia in the USA, Canada and Europe: the APPETIZE study

2024· article· en· W4392059441 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David C. Wheeler, Henning Søndergaard, Cathy W. Gwynn, Katarina Hedman, Jonatan Hedberg, Alaster Allum, Hui-Lan Chung, Mats Någård, Gunilla Stjernlöf, Eric Wittbrodt, Jennifer Kim, Jon D. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPotassium and Related Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAstraZeneca
KeywordsPalatabilityMedicineMouthfeelTasteFeelingPreferenceEnvironmental healthClinical psychologyFood scienceSocial psychologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives Traditional potassium (K + ) binders for treating hyperkalaemia are unpalatable and poorly tolerated. Newer K + binders are reportedly better tolerated; however, no published data describe their palatability, a determinant of long-term adherence. This study evaluated the palatability of and preference for three K + binders: sodium and calcium polystyrene sulfonate (S/CPS), sodium zirconium cyclosilicate (SZC) and calcium patiromer sorbitex (patiromer). Design Phase 4, randomised, participant-blinded, cross-over study. Participants were randomised to one of six taste sequences and, using a ‘sip and spit’ approach, tasted each K + binder before completing a survey. Setting 17 centres across the USA, Canada and European Union. Participants 144 participants with chronic kidney disease, hyperkalaemia and no recent use of K + binders. Main outcome measures For the primary (USA) and key secondary (Canada and European Union) endpoints, participants rated palatability attributes (taste, texture, smell and mouthfeel) and willingness to take each K + binder on a scale of 0–10 (rational evaluation). Feelings about each attribute, and the idea of taking the product once daily, were evaluated using a non-verbal, visual measure of emotional response. Finally, participants ranked the K + binders according to palatability. Results In each region, SZC and patiromer outperformed S/CPS on overall palatability (a composite of taste, texture, smell and mouthfeel), based on rational evaluation and emotional response. Taking the product once daily was more appealing for SZC and patiromer, creating greater receptivity than the idea of taking S/CPS. The emotional response to mouthfeel had the strongest influence on feelings about taking each product. In each region, a numerically greater proportion of participants ranked SZC as the most preferred K + binder versus patiromer or S/CPS. Conclusions Preference for more palatable K + binders such as SZC and patiromer may provide an opportunity to improve adherence to long-term treatment of hyperkalaemia. Trial registration number NCT04566653 .

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPotassium and Related DisordersFrench-language works237,207