Pravastatin was not better than usual care in reducing all cause mortality or CHD events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(2002) JAMA 288, 2998. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT-LLT). . Major outcomes in moderately hypercholesterolemic, hypertensive patients randomized to pravastatin vs usual care. . ; . : . –3007 . [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: In older patients with well controlled hypertension and moderately elevated low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), is pravastatin better than usual care in reducing all cause mortality and coronary heart disease (CHD) events? Randomised (allocation concealed*), unblinded,* controlled trial with mean 4.8 years of follow up (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial [ALLHAT-LLT]). 513 clinical centres in the US, Canada, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands. 10 355 patients (mean age 66 y, 51% men) who were enrolled in the ALLHAT (age ≥55 y and stage 1 or 2 hypertension with ≥1 additional risk factor for CHD; fasting LDL-C concentration 3.1–4.9 mmol/l for those with no known CHD, or 2.6–3.3 mmol/l for those with known … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.issn%253D0002-9955%26rft.aulast%253DThe%2BALLHAT%2BOfficers%2Band%2BCoordinators%2Bfor%2Bthe%2BALLHA%26rft.auinit1%253D%2B%26rft.volume%253D288%26rft.issue%253D23%26rft.spage%253D2998%26rft.epage%253D3007%26rft.atitle%253DMajor%2BOutcomes%2Bin%2BModerately%2BHypercholesterolemic%252C%2BHypertensive%2BPatients%2BRandomized%2Bto%2BPravastatin%2Bvs%2BUsual%2BCare%253A%2BThe%2BAntihypertensive%2Band%2BLipid-Lowering%2BTreatment%2Bto%2BPrevent%2BHeart%2BAttack%2BTrial%2B%2528ALLHAT-LLT%2529%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.288.23.2998%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12479764%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=10.1001/jama.288.23.2998&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12479764&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F8%2F4%2F106.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000179854200034&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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".