MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1938592689

Le point sur les statines

2002· article· fr· W1938592689 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie Verret

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesMedicinePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resume Cet article se veut un resume des connaissances actuelles sur les statines. Le retrait de Baycol ᴹᴰ au mois d’aout dernier impose une mise au point sur le sujet. Les etudes cliniques evaluant l’efficacite des statines seront d’abord presentees. Par la suite, nous discuterons de la notion des effets pleiotropiques des differentes statines et de l’utilite clinique de ces effets specifiquement dans le traitement du syndrome coronarien aigu. A la suite d’un resume des nouvelles recommandations du National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) publiees cette annee, une reflexion sur le role du pharmacien par rapport a ces recommandations est faite. Avant de conclure, nous discuterons aussi du risque de myopathie et de rhabdomyolyse. Abstract This article is a summary of statin actual knowledge. The recall of Baycolᴹᴰ last August requests a clarification of the subject. We will first present clinical studies assessing efficiency of statins. Pleiotropic effects of various statins and clinical utility of these effects for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome will then be discussed. Following a summary of new recommendations of the National Cholesterol Education Program reported this year; a thought is made on the pharmacist’s role regarding these recommendations. Before conclusion, the risk of myopathy and rhabdomyolysis will be discussed.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.011

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→