MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964307764 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.5842149.v1

Telemonitoring and Case Management for Hypertensive and Remote-Dwelling Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease—The Telemonitoring for Improved Kidney Outcomes Study (TIKO): A Clinical Research Protocol

2022· other· en· W6964307764 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2022
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKidney diseaseGuidelineBlood pressureRandomized controlled trialProtocol (science)Clinical trialDiseasePrimary care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Hypertension, together with poorly controlled blood pressure (BP) are known risk factors for kidney disease and progression to kidney failure as well as increased cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality. Several studies in patients without kidney disease have demonstrated the efficacy of home BP telemonitoring (HBPT) for BP control.Objective:The primary aim of this study is to assess the mean difference in systolic BP (SBP) at 12 months, from baseline in remote dwelling patients with hypertension and chronic kidney disease (CKD) in Northern Alberta, Canada, comparing HBPT + usual care versus HBPT + a case manager. Other secondary objectives, including cost-effectiveness and acceptability of HBPT as well as occurrence of adverse events will also be assessed.MethodsDesign:This study is designed as a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) of HBPT plus clinical case management compared to HBPT with usual care.Setting:Peace River region in Northern Alberta Region, Canada.Patients:Primary care patients with CKD and hypertension.Measurements:Eligible patients will be randomized 1:1 to HBPT + BP case management versus HBPT + usual care. In the intervention arm, BP will be measured 4 times daily for 1 week, with medications titrated up or down by the study case manager until guideline targets (systolic BP [SBP]: <130 mmHg) are achieved. Once BP is controlled, (ie, to guideline-concordant targets), this 1-week protocol will be repeated every 3 months for 1 year. Patients in the control arm will also follow the same BP measurement protocol; however, there will be no interactions with the case manager; they will share their BP readings with their primary care physicians or nurse practitioners at scheduled visits.Limitations:Potential limitations of this study include the relatively short duration of follow-up, possible technological pitfalls, and need for patients to own a smartphone and have access to the internet to participate.Conclusions:As this study will focus on a high-risk population that has been characterized by a large care gap, it will generate important evidence that would allow targeted and effective population-level strategies to be implemented to improve health outcomes for high-risk hypertensive CKD patients in Canada’s remote communities.Trial Registration:www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT number: NCT04098354)

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.007

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207