Low dose aspirin lowered stroke risk but not risks of MI or cardiovascular deaths in women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ridker PM, Cook NR, Lee IM, et al . A randomized trial of low-dose aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women. N Engl J Med 2005;352:1293–304. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q Is low dose aspirin effective for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in women? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★☆ IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★☆☆ Neurology ★★★★★★☆ Haematology ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5] Design: randomised, placebo controlled trial (Women’s Health Study). ### ![Graphic][6] Allocation: {concealed*}†. ### ![Graphic][7] Blinding: blinded {healthcare providers, participants, data collectors, and outcome assessors}†.* ### ![Graphic][8] Follow up period: mean 10 years. ### ![Graphic][9] Setting: USA and Puerto Rico. ### ![Graphic][10] Participants: 39 876 women ⩾45 years of age (mean age 55 y) who had no history of coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease, cancer (except non-melanoma skin cancer), or other major chronic illness; contraindication to the study medications; were not taking aspirin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anticoagulants, or corticosteroids; and were not taking vitamin A or E, or ß carotene supplements more than once per week. ### ![Graphic][11] Intervention: aspirin, 100 mg every other day (n = 19 934) or placebo (n = 19 942). ### ![Graphic][12] Outcomes: first major cardiovascular event (non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal stroke, or cardiovascular death); individual cardiovascular endpoints; and adverse events. ### ![Graphic][13] Patient follow up: 97% (intention to treat analysis). The table shows … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DN%2BEngl%2BJ%2BMed%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa050613%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15753114%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa050613&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15753114&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F10%2F5%2F137.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000227998300006&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [12]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.gif [13]: /embed/inline-graphic-9.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | medium |
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".