MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1524740018

Abstract 17212: Effect of Enalapril on Long-Term Survival among Patients with Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction: a 25-Year Near-Full Life-Cycle Follow-Up of SOLVD in Belgium

2014· article· en· W1524740018 on OpenAlexaff
Sylvie A. Ahn, Philip Jong, H. Pouleur, Michel F. Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Function and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnalaprilMedicineRandomizationPlaceboHeart failureCohortInternal medicineCardiologyACE inhibitorSurgeryClinical trialAngiotensin-converting enzymeBlood pressure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that in-trial enalapril therapy was associated with a post-trial mortality benefit in a 12-year follow-up of the Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD). We reported here the effect of enalapril on long-term survival in a SOLVD cohort from Belgium that had reached a near-full life-cycle follow-up after 25 years. METHODS: Among the 558 Belgium patients originally enrolled in SOLVD (398 in prevention arm and 160 in treatment arm), post-trial mortality data were prospectively collected on all 433 survivors (218 in enalapril group vs. 215 in placebo group) at closeout. All patients received enalapril therapy after the trial ended. RESULTS: No patients were lost to follow-up. The median duration of follow-up was 25.3 years since randomization or 22.1 years since closeout. In all, 91% of patients had died. Kaplan-Meier event rate for all-cause mortality was lower in the enalapril group than the placebo group over the entire follow-up period (88% vs. 94%, p=0.02). When ...

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicCardiovascular Function and Risk FactorsFrench-language works237,207