Sex Differences in the Effectiveness of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers and Angiotensin Converting Enzyme Inhibitors in Patients with Congestive Heart Failure — A Population Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) have been shown to improve survival in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF). We wish to determine whether there are sex-related differences in the optimal treatment of congestive heart failure. METHODS: Using administrative databases, all patients >>=65 years of age discharged with a diagnosis of CHF between January 1998 and March 2003 and who filled a prescription for an ARB or an ACE inhibitor within 90 days of discharge were identified. Time to all-cause death in women and men on ACE inhibitors or ARBs was compared. RESULTS: There were 10,223 women (8627 ACE inhibitors and 1596 ARBs) and 9475 men (8484 ACE inhibitors and 991 ARBs). Hypertension was more common in women (50.1%) than men (33.1%). Women on ARBs had better survival than those on ACE inhibitors (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59, 0.80). There was no difference in survival in men prescribed ARBs compared to ACE inhibitors (HR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95, 1.30). CONCLUSION: These sex differences in treatment-related outcome are important but should be confirmed in a randomized trial before ARBs are preferentially prescribed to women with CHF.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".