MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4400387168 · doi:10.29011/2574-7568.010129

Impact of Point of Care Albuminuria on Therapeutic Inertia in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension

2024· article· en· W4400387168 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Diabetes and Treatment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersServier
KeywordsAlbuminuriaMedicineType 2 diabetesDiabetes mellitusInternal medicinePoint of careIntensive care medicineEndocrinologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Therapeutic inertia in type 2 diabetes (T2D) is particularly evident for albuminuria that does not receive full attention from treating practitioners.Our objective was to assess whether we could help overcome therapeutic inertia of T2D hypertensive patients with a point of care measure of blood pressure and albuminuria on quality of care.Methodology: CLINPRADIA (CLINical PRActice in DIAbetes (NCT01907958)) was a multicenter randomized trial in family practice clinics in Canada to evaluate the impact of introducing a device allowing a point-of-care testing (POCT) of urinary albumin excretion to usual practice on the management of albuminuria in T2D patients with hypertension.A total of 8 sites (4 in Quebec and 4 in Ontario) with at least 5 general practitioners each were involved in the study totaling 243 patients with uncontrolled hypertension (i.e., BP>130/80 mmHg) who were followed for a period of 12 months.The clinics that had access to the POCT of blood pressure and albuminuria at some point during the study formed the intervention group while the clinics that did not have access to the information at any time during the study were included in the control group.Results: Baseline characteristics of control and intervention groups were not different in age, sex, blood pressure (BP), blood glucose control and kidney function.By the end of the study, the decrease in albuminuria from log ACR 0.357 to 0.017 was significant (p<0.002) in the intervention group only.Its lowering was more significant (p<0.01) with ACEi or ARBs combined with CCB than with the medications alone or with any other medications.These combinations led also to a significant reversal of eGFR decline.At the end of the study, the average SBP were 129 and 137 mmHg in the intervention and control groups, respectively (difference p=0.004), so that more patients had their blood pressure controlled in the intervention group.Conclusion: Provision of timely information of blood pressure and albuminuria levels of T2D patients helped overcome therapeutic inertia.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Diabetes and Treatment→Same topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies→French-language works237,207→