Long‐term safety of unopposed estrogen used by women surviving myocardial infarction: 14‐year follow‐up of the <scp>ESPRIT</scp> randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare health outcomes during 14-year observational follow-up in women initially randomised to unopposed estrogen or placebo. DESIGN: At recruitment to the Estrogen for the Prevention of Re-Infarction Trial (ESPRIT) women were assigned to estradiol valerate: 2 mg or placebo treatment for 2 years. SETTING: Women were recruited from 35 hospitals in the northwest of England and Wales in July 1996-February 2000. SAMPLE: Women aged 50-69 surviving their first myocardial infarction. METHODS: All women were followed by data linkage to UK mortality and cancer records; mean follow-up 14.1 and 12.6 years, respectively. In an intention-to-treat analysis, hazard ratios (HRs) were computed, overall and stratified by age at recruitment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Death (all-cause, cardiac disease, stroke or cancer) and cancer incidence (any, breast or endometrium). RESULTS: There were 418 deaths in 1017 women randomised. The all-cause mortality HR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.88-1.29) indicated no significant difference between treatment groups. Women aged 50-59 years at recruitment had lower HRs than women aged 60-69 years for all outcomes except ischaemic heart disease. Among 149 incident cancers there were seven cases of breast cancer in the intervention arm and 15 in the placebo; HR 0.47 (95% CI 0.19-1.15). There were no deaths from endometrial cancer but three incident cases, one in the active arm and two in placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that unopposed estrogen may be used safely by women with an intact uterus surviving a first myocardial infarction.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".