The Comparative Effectiveness of Angiotensin‐Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin<scp>II</scp>Receptor Blockers in Patients With Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evidence examining the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) on mortality in high-risk patients is conflicting. To further examine this controversy, the authors compared outcomes between ACE inhibitors and ARBs in a large clinical diabetes registry. A retrospective cohort of 87,472 incident users followed for 105,702 patient-years was analyzed. Average age was 53.1±10.1 years, 54.2% were men, and 14.4% had cardiovascular disease. All-cause hospitalization or all-cause mortality, the composite primary endpoint, occurred in 10,943 (12.5%) patients. Compared with ACE inhibitors, the adjusted hazard for ARBs was 0.90 (95% confidence interval, 0.87-0.94) for all-cause hospitalization or mortality; 0.95 (0.65-1.40) for mortality; 0.90 (0.87-0.94) for all-cause hospitalization; and 0.81 (0.74-0.89) for cardiovascular admission. ARB use was associated with a reduced, not increased, risk of hospitalization/mortality relative to ACE inhibition. This was driven by lower hospitalization, with a null mortality result.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".