Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) Trial: Rationale and Design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Elevated plasma levels of homocyst(e)ine [H(e)] are surprisingly common and strongly associated with endothelial dysfunction and a marked increase in vascular risk. Treatment with a combination of folic acid, pyridoxine (vitamin B6) and cobalamin (vitamin B12) reduces plasma H(e) levels in most cases, restores endothelial function, and regresses carotid plaque, but there is no evidence that such treatment will reduce clinical events. The Vitamin Intervention for Stroke Prevention (VISP) study is a double-masked, randomized, multicenter clinical trial designed to determine if, in addition to best medical/surgical management, high-dose folic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 supplements will reduce recurrent stroke compared to lower doses of these vitamins. Patients at least 35 years old with a nondisabling ischemic stroke within 120 days, and screening plasma H(e) > the 25th percentile of benchmark population data are eligible. Secondary endpoints are myocardial infarction or fatal coronary heart disease. This paper describes the design and rationale of the study.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".