Effect of Lipid Lowering With Rosuvastatin on Progression of Aortic Stenosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Aortic stenosis (AS) is an active process with similarities to atherosclerosis. The objective of this study was to assess the effect of cholesterol lowering with rosuvastatin on the progression of AS. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in asymptomatic patients with mild to moderate AS and no clinical indications for cholesterol lowering. The patients were randomized to receive either placebo or rosuvastatin 40 mg daily. A total of 269 patients were randomized: 134 patients to rosuvastatin 40 mg daily and 135 patients to placebo. Annual echocardiograms were performed to assess AS progression, which was the primary outcome; the median follow-up was 3.5 years. The peak AS gradient increased in patients receiving rosuvastatin from a baseline of 40.8+/-11.1 to 57.8+/-22.7 mm Hg at the end of follow-up and in patients with placebo from 41.6+/-10.9 mm Hg at baseline to 54.8+/-19.8 mm Hg at the end of follow-up. The annualized increase in the peak AS gradient was 6.3+/-6.9 mm Hg in the rosuvastatin group and 6.1+/-8.2 mm Hg in the placebo group (P=0.83). Treatment with rosuvastatin was not associated with a reduction in AS progression in any of the predefined subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: Cholesterol lowering with rosuvastatin 40 mg did not reduce the progression of AS in patients with mild to moderate AS; thus, statins should not be used for the sole purpose of reducing the progression of AS. Clinical Trial Registration Information- URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com/. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 32424163.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".