MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974518982 · doi:10.1136/ebn.4.3.86

Aspirin but not vitamin E prevented cardiovascular events in patients at risk

2001· article· en· W1974518982 on OpenAlexaff
Heather Sherrard

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinInternal medicineWeb of scienceGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative Group of the Primary Prevention Project (PPP). Low-dose aspirin and vitamin E in people at cardiovascular risk: a randomised trial in general practice. Lancet2001 Jan 13; 357 : 89 –95 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In patients with ≥1 cardiovascular risk factor but no history of cardiovascular disease, do aspirin and vitamin E prevent cardiovascular events? Randomised (allocation concealed), unblinded, 2 × 2 factorial trial with a mean follow up of 3.6 years. 315 general practices and 15 hospital hypertension units in Italy. 4495 patients (mean age 64 y, 58% women) aged ≥50 years who had ≥1 major cardiovascular risk factor: age ≥65 years, hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes mellitus, obesity, and family history of myocardial infarction (MI) before 55 years of age in ≥1 parent or sibling. Exclusion criteria were treatment with antiplatelet drugs, chronic use of anti-inflammatory agents or anticoagulants, contraindication … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253Dde%2BGaetano%26rft.auinit1%253DG.%26rft.volume%253D357%26rft.issue%253D9250%26rft.spage%253D89%26rft.epage%253D95%26rft.atitle%253DLow-dose%2Baspirin%2Band%2Bvitamin%2BE%2Bin%2Bpeople%2Bat%2Bcardiovascular%2Brisk%253A%2Ba%2Brandomised%2Btrial%2Bin%2Bgeneral%2Bpractice.%2BCollaborative%2BGroup%2Bof%2Bthe%2BPrimary%2BPrevention%2BProject.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252800%252903539-X%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F11197445%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=10.1016/S0140-6736(00)03539-X&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=11197445&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F4%2F3%2F86.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000166476200009&link_type=ISI

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207