Coenrolment in a Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Trial: Protocol for a Substudy of Characteristics and Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Coenrolment is defined as the enrolment of an individual patient into more than one study. This protocol describes a study of coenrolment nested in a randomized, blinded, parallel-group trial of stress ulcer prophylaxis comparing the effect of pantoprazole versus placebo on the primary efficacy outcome of clinically important upper gastrointestinal bleeding, and the primary safety outcome of 90-day all-cause mortality. The objective of this study is to determine the characteristics of patients, centers and studies involved in coenrolment, and the association of coenrolment with trial metrics and patient outcomes. Methods This is a pre-planned study with 5 specific aims and a priori hypotheses. The aims are to analyze: 1) the informed consent model of the coenrolled studies, timing of coenrolment, coenrolled study affiliation, and coenrolled study funding; 2) the characteristics of patients and centers involved in coenrolment versus not involved in coenrolment; 3) the association of coenrolment with adverse events; 4) the effect of coenrolment on protocol deviations; and 5) the impact of coenrolment on the effect of pantoprazole on the primary efficacy outcome (upper gastrointestinal bleeding) and the primary safety outcome (90-day mortality). We will use descriptive analyses and regression analysis to examine patterns and predictors of coenrolment. Results All 4821 trial participants will be included in this trial, 1719 (35.7%) of whom were coenrolled in at least one other study. Conclusions Among invasively ventilated patients in this stress ulcer prophylaxis trial, we will generate much needed empiric evidence about coenrolment in critically ill patients. These data will help to inform future guidance documents on this topic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.048 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.014 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".