The Effect of Statins on Circulating Endothelial Progenitor Cells in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerous clinical trials have demonstrated early reductions in cardiovascular events occurring independently of the lipid-lowering effects of statins. These pleiotropic effects have been attributed to antiinflammatory properties, to atherosclerotic plaque stabilization, and more recently to mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs). Our aim was to evaluate the evidence supporting statin-induced EPC mobilization in humans. We, therefore, performed a computerized literature search and systematic review of randomized trials to determine the effect of statin therapy and statin dosing on circulating EPC numbers. Our literature search identified 10 studies including 479 patients which met inclusion criteria with publication dates ranging from 2005 to 2011. Seven studies compared statin to nonstatin regimens whereas 3 studied low versus high-dose statin therapy. Reported increases in EPC number ranged from 25.8% to 223.5% with a median reported increase of 70.2% when compared to nonstatin regimens with 7 of 10 studies reporting significant increases. Considerable heterogeneity exists in regard to patient population, statin regimens, and the definition of an EPC within the identified studies. In conclusion, randomized studies in humans suggest that statin therapy mobilizes EPCs into the circulation. Larger randomized studies using uniform definitions are needed to definitively establish this effect.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".