MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1678920698 · doi:10.1001/jama.293.11.1338

Effects of Long-term Vitamin E Supplementation on Cardiovascular Events and Cancer

2005· article· en· W1678920698 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionHeart failurePlaceboCancerStroke (engine)Relative riskInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusIncidence (geometry)Clinical trialRandomized controlled trialAnginaSurgeryConfidence intervalEndocrinologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: Experimental and epidemiological data suggest that vitamin E supplementation may prevent cancer and cardiovascular events. Clinical trials have generally failed to confirm benefits, possibly due to their relatively short duration. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether long-term supplementation with vitamin E decreases the risk of cancer, cancer death, and major cardiovascular events. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled international trial (the initial Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation [HOPE] trial conducted between December 21, 1993, and April 15, 1999) of patients at least 55 years old with vascular disease or diabetes mellitus was extended (HOPE-The Ongoing Outcomes [HOPE-TOO]) between April 16, 1999, and May 26, 2003. Of the initial 267 HOPE centers that had enrolled 9541 patients, 174 centers participated in the HOPE-TOO trial. Of 7030 patients enrolled at these centers, 916 were deceased at the beginning of the extension, 1382 refused participation, 3994 continued to take the study intervention, and 738 agreed to passive follow-up. Median duration of follow-up was 7.0 years. INTERVENTION: Daily dose of natural source vitamin E (400 IU) or matching placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes included cancer incidence, cancer deaths, and major cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death). Secondary outcomes included heart failure, unstable angina, and revascularizations. RESULTS: Among all HOPE patients, there were no significant differences in the primary analysis: for cancer incidence, there were 552 patients (11.6%) in the vitamin E group vs 586 (12.3%) in the placebo group (relative risk [RR], 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.06; P = .30); for cancer deaths, 156 (3.3%) vs 178 (3.7%), respectively (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.09; P = .24); and for major cardiovascular events, 1022 (21.5%) vs 985 (20.6%), respectively (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.96-1.14; P = .34). Patients in the vitamin E group had a higher risk of heart failure (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.01-1.26; P = .03) and hospitalization for heart failure (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.00-1.47; P = .045). Similarly, among patients enrolled at the centers participating in the HOPE-TOO trial, there were no differences in cancer incidence, cancer deaths, and major cardiovascular events, but higher rates of heart failure and hospitalizations for heart failure. CONCLUSION: In patients with vascular disease or diabetes mellitus, long-term vitamin E supplementation does not prevent cancer or major cardiovascular events and may increase the risk for heart failure.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.705
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.278 · 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