Coaching by non-drug prescribing health professionals reduced total cholesterol concentrations in coronary heart disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vale MJ, Jelinek MV, Best JD, et al . Coaching patients On Achieving Cardiovascular Health (COACH): a multicenter randomized trial in patients with coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:2775–83.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients with coronary heart disease (CHD), does a 6 month programme of coaching by non-drug prescribing nurses and dietitians reduce total cholesterol (TC) concentrations? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial (Coaching patients On Achieving Cardiovascular Health [COACH]). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: concealed. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: blinded (outcome assessors). ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: 6 months. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: cardiology departments of 6 university teaching hospitals in Melbourne, Australia. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 792 patients (mean age 59 y, 77% men) who were admitted to hospital for coronary artery bypass graft surgery; percutaneous coronary intervention; acute myocardial infarction or unstable angina and discharged on medical therapy; or coronary angiography with planned … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BInternal%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BIntern%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DVale%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%2BJ.%26rft.volume%253D163%26rft.issue%253D22%26rft.spage%253D2775%26rft.epage%253D2783%26rft.atitle%253DCoaching%2Bpatients%2BOn%2BAchieving%2BCardiovascular%2BHealth%2B%2528COACH%2529%253A%2BA%2BMulticenter%2BRandomized%2BTrial%2Bin%2BPatients%2BWith%2BCoronary%2BHeart%2BDisease%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchinte.163.22.2775%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F14662633%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archinte.163.22.2775&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=14662633&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F3%2F81.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000187007700015&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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".