ASHP Therapeutic Position Statement on the Daily Use of Aspirin for Preventing Cardiovascular Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of aspirin as an antiplatelet agent in preventing cardiovascular events and the progression of coronary heart disease (CHD) has been demonstrated in clinical trials in various patient groups. However, despite adequate evidence of benefit, many eligible patients are not treated with aspirin.1,–3 Using aspirin for the prevention of cardiovascular events is considered a quality marker by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Quality Forum, and the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. ASHP supports the daily use of aspirin as an adjunct to other effective drug therapies and modifying controllable risk factors for CHD for the following indications: (1) primary prevention of cardiovascular events in adults with increased CHD risk (10-year risk of at least 6% based on Framingham risk scoring)4,–6 and (2) secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in patients with a history of chronic stable angina7 or acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [MI], and ST-segment elevation MI.)8–10 The Framingham risk scoring system is a simple means of individualizing risk assessments and provides an estimate of total CHD risk over the course of 10 years.11 These positions are consistent with recommendations by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC–AHA),6,–10 the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force,4 the Sixth American College of Chest Physicians Consensus Conference on Antithrombotic Therapy,12 and the American Diabetes Association (Table 11).13
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.029 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.036 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".