MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1881471613

Did the major clinical trials of statins affect prescribing behaviour?

2001· letter· en· W1881471613 on OpenAlexaff
Muhammad Mamdani, Jack V. Tu

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialMedicineAffect (linguistics)Coronary heart diseaseHydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase InhibitorsClinical trialStatinCoronary diseaseCholesterol loweringDiseaseIntensive care medicineCholesterolAlternative medicineInternal medicinePharmacologyBioinformaticsPathologyPsychologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have clearly demonstrated that cholesterol-lowering statins are beneficial in the treatment and prevention of coronary heart disease. Although recent evidence indicates that major RCTs of statins have significantly influenced physicians' prescribing behaviour,[1][

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.352
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.352
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0280.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.171
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.208 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations32
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207