MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W113714250 · doi:10.1056/nejm200001203420302

Vitamin E Supplementation and Cardiovascular Events in High-Risk Patients

2000· article· en· W113714250 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
Canadian institutionsHamilton General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineRelative riskRamiprilHeart failureDiabetes mellitusStroke (engine)Confidence intervalRisk factorAnginaCardiologySurgeryEndocrinologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Observational and experimental studies suggest that the amount of vitamin E ingested in food and in supplements is associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease and atherosclerosis. METHODS: We enrolled a total of 2545 women and 6996 men 55 years of age or older who were at high risk for cardiovascular events because they had cardiovascular disease or diabetes in addition to one other risk factor. These patients were randomly assigned according to a two-by-two factorial design to receive either 400 IU of vitamin E daily from natural sources or matching placebo and either an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor (ramipril) or matching placebo for a mean of 4.5 years (the results of the comparison of ramipril and placebo are reported in a companion article). The primary outcome was a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and death from cardiovascular causes. The secondary outcomes included unstable angina, congestive heart failure, revascularization or amputation, death from any cause, complications of diabetes, and cancer. RESULTS: A total of 772 of the 4761 patients assigned to vitamin E (16.2 percent) and 739 of the 4780 assigned to placebo (15.5 percent) had a primary outcome event (relative risk, 1.05; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.16; P=0.33). There were no significant differences in the numbers of deaths from cardiovascular causes (342 of those assigned to vitamin E vs. 328 of those assigned to placebo; relative risk, 1.05; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.22), myocardial infarction (532 vs. 524; relative risk, 1.02; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.90 to 1.15), or stroke (209 vs. 180; relative risk, 1.17; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.95 to 1.42). There were also no significant differences in the incidence of secondary cardiovascular outcomes or in death from any cause. There were no significant adverse effects of vitamin E. CONCLUSIONS: In patients at high risk for cardiovascular events, treatment with vitamin E for a mean of 4.5 years had no apparent effect on cardiovascular outcomes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1,956
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative StressFrench-language works237,207