Ongoing clinical trials of the pleiotropic effects of statins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The multiple effects (ie, pleiotropic effects of statins) have received increasing recognition and may have clinical applicability across a broad range of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular conditions. OBJECTIVE: To determine the relevance and significance of ongoing clinical trials of the pleiotropic effects of statins, focusing on nonlipid effects. METHOD: Ongoing trials were identified through personal communication, reports presented at scientific meetings (2000-2004), and queries made to AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb Co, Merck & Co, Novartis, and Pfizer, manufacturers of the currently marketed statins. Published trials and other source material were identified through electronic searches on MEDLINE (1990-2003), abstract books, and references identified from bibliographies of pertinent articles. Eligible studies were the clinical trials of statins currently under way in which primary or secondary outcomes included the statins' nonlipid (ie, pleiotropic) effect(s). Data were extracted and trial quality was assessed by the authors. RESULTS: Of the 22 ongoing trials of the nonlipid effects of statins identified, 10 assessed inflammatory markers and plaque stabilization, 4 assessed oxidized low density lipoprotein/vascular oxidant stress, 3 assessed end-stage renal disease, 3 assessed fibrinogen/viscosity, 2 assessed endothelial function, 2 assessed acute coronary syndrome, 2 assessed aortic stenosis progression, and 1 each assessed hypertension, osteoporosis, ischemic burden, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis, and stroke (outcomes often overlapped). CONCLUSION: Given the excellent safety and tolerability of statins as a class, full exploration of their pleiotropic effects has the potential to provide additional benefits to many patients.
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 | 0.116 | 0.157 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".