Impact of nicorandil in angina: subgroup analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: IONA (impact of nicorandil in angina) is a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled trial of nicorandil, with a target dose of 20 mg twice daily. The consistency of benefits seen in subgroups is reported. METHODS: The primary composite end point of the study was coronary heart disease death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or unplanned hospitalisation for cardiac chest pain. Subgroups were defined using baseline characteristics including, age, sex, histories of smoking, diabetes, hypertension, myocardial infarction, revascularisation, anginal status, anti-anginal treatment, other cardiovascular drugs, and an overall assessment of risk. RESULTS: A total of 5126 patients were randomised to receive nicorandil or identical placebo in addition to standard anti-anginal treatment. Overall, nicorandil reduced the incidence of the primary end point from 15.5% to 13.1% (hazard ratio (HR) 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 0.97; p = 0.014). There was no evidence of significant heterogeneity of benefit across all subgroups studied. The absolute risk reduction was greatest and the numbers needed to treat to prevent one event was lowest in subjects at greatest risk. CONCLUSIONS: The IONA study demonstrates a significant improvement in outcome by nicorandil treatment across a broad range of patients with stable angina.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".