Enhanced Antiplatelet Effects of Clopidogrel plus Acetylsalicylic Acid Compared with Acetylsalicylic Acid Alone or Combined with Extended-Release Dipyridamole in Healthy Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown the potential benefit of using antiplatelet agents with complementary modes of action. METHODS: Using a crossover design, the ex vivo antiplatelet effects of 10 days' treatment with clopidogrel 75 mg + acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) 75 mg daily, ASA 75 mg/day, or extended-release dipyridamole 200 mg/low-dose ASA 25 mg twice daily were compared, using various platelet agonists. RESULTS: Clopidogrel + ASA was significantly more effective than dipyridamole + ASA in inhibiting collagen-induced platelet aggregation in whole blood (mean 44.9 +/- 5.6% inhibition vs. 16.5 +/- 6.7%; p = 0.0009). Clopidogrel + ASA was significantly more effective than ASA or dipyridamole + ASA in inhibiting ADP-induced platelet aggregation in whole blood (p < or = 0.0001) and platelet-rich plasma (PRP) (p < or = 0.0001), and in inhibiting collagen-induced aggregation in PRP (p < or = 0.0001). ASA alone and clopidogrel + ASA were significantly more effective than dipyridamole + ASA in inhibiting arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation in whole blood (p < or = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Based on ex vivo platelet aggregometry, clopidogrel + ASA is a more potent antiplatelet regimen than either ASA alone or the marketed combination of dipyridamole + ASA. However, the clinical significance of this finding remains to be confirmed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".