Simvastatin and Niacin, Antioxidant Vitamins, or the Combination for the Prevention of Coronary Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both lipid-modifying therapy and antioxidant vitamins are thought to have benefit in patients with coronary disease. We studied simvastatin-niacin and antioxidant-vitamin therapy, alone and together, for cardiovascular protection in patients with coronary disease and low plasma levels of HDL. METHODS: In a three-year, double-blind trial, 160 patients with coronary disease, low HDL cholesterol levels and normal LDL cholesterol levels were randomly assigned to receive one of four regimens: simvastatin plus niacin, vitamins, simvastatin-niacin plus antioxidants; or placebos. The end points were arteriographic evidence of a change in coronary stenosis and the occurrence of a first cardiovascular event (death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or revascularization). RESULTS: The mean levels of LDL and HDL cholesterol were unaltered in the antioxidant group and the placebo group; these levels changed substantially (by -42 percent and +26 percent, respectively) in the simvastatin-niacin group. The protective increase in HDL2 with simvastatin plus niacin was attenuated by concurrent therapy with antioxidants. The average stenosis progressed by 3.9 percent with placebos, 1.8 percent with antioxidants (P=0.16 for the comparison with the placebo group), and 0.7 percent with simvastatin-niacin plus antioxidants (P=0.004) and regressed by 0.4 percent with simvastatin-niacin alone (P<0.001). The frequency of the clinical end point was 24 percent with placebos; 3 percent with simvastatin-niacin alone; 21 percent in the antioxidant-therapy group; and 14 percent in the simvastatin-niacin-plus-antioxidants group. CONCLUSIONS: Simvastatin plus niacin provides marked clinical and angiographically measurable benefits in patients with coronary disease and low HDL levels. The use of antioxidant vitamins in this setting must be questioned.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".