Digoxin increased risk of death in women, but not men, with heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rathore SS, Wang Y, Krumholz HM. Sex-based differences in the effect of digoxin for the treatment of heart failure. N Engl J Med2002 ; 347 : 1403 –11 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: Does the effect of digoxin therapy differ in men and women with heart failure (HF) and depressed left ventricular systolic function? Randomised {allocation concealed}*, blinded ({participants, healthcare providers,}† and data collectors), placebo controlled trial with up to 48 months of follow up. 302 clinical centres in the US and Canada. 5281 men (median age 64 y, 87% white, 30% New York Heart Association [NYHA] class ≥III) and 1519 women (median age 66 y, 81% white, 40.6% NYHA class ≥III) who had clinically confirmed HF (ie, current or past clinical symptoms or signs or radiographic evidence of pulmonary congestion) and an ejection fraction … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DNew%2BEngland%2BJournal%2Bof%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DNEJM%26rft.aulast%253DRathore%26rft.auinit1%253DS.%2BS.%26rft.volume%253D347%26rft.issue%253D18%26rft.spage%253D1403%26rft.epage%253D1411%26rft.atitle%253DSex-Based%2BDifferences%2Bin%2Bthe%2BEffect%2Bof%2BDigoxin%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BTreatment%2Bof%2BHeart%2BFailure%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa021266%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12409542%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=10.1056/NEJMoa021266&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12409542&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F6%2F3%2F80.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000178888400003&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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".