Cardiovascular responses to weight management and sibutramine in high-risk subjects: an analysis from the SCOUT trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The Sibutramine Cardiovascular OUTcomes (SCOUT) trial is a randomized, double-blind comparison of sibutramine vs. placebo, in addition to standard care for weight management, in overweight/obese subjects with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. The study had an initial single-blind, 6-week lead-in period with sibutramine plus weight management. We report the cardiovascular responses and weight loss during this period. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 10,742 subjects received treatment in the lead-in period; 97% had cardiovascular disease, 88% hypertension and 84% type 2 diabetes. Body weight decreased (median 2.2 kg [5th, 95th percentile changes -6.2, 0.5]); waist circumference was reduced by 2.0 cm (men: -8.5, 2.9; women: -9.0, 3.0), systolic blood pressure fell by 3.0 mmHg (-23.5, 12.5) and diastolic by 1.0 mmHg (-13.5, 10.0). Pulse rate increased by 1.5 b.p.m. (-11.0, 13.5). All changes were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Two consecutive increases in blood pressure or pulse rate of >10 mmHg/b.p.m. were observed in 4.7 and 3.5% of subjects, respectively. Fifteen subjects (0.1%) died; 10 deaths were attributed to a cardiovascular cause, equivalent to 1.2 and 0.8 deaths per 100 years of exposure, respectively. CONCLUSION: Six-week treatment with sibutramine appears to be efficacious, tolerable and safe in this high-risk population for whom sibutramine is usually contraindicated.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".