Authors' reply to Huffman and colleagues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We thank the Cochrane review authors for their thoughtful comments (highlighted in quotes below), which give us the opportunity to clarify unresolved issues about the benefits and harms of statins in low risk people.1 > “This article predated by three weeks the publication of the 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) cholesterol treatment guidelines (12 November 2013), but statements were made about ‘proposed standards’ without full knowledge of these guidelines.” The “proposed standards” that we referred to in our article were not the yet to be published 2013 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines on cholesterol treatment.2 3 Rather, they were the 2013 update of the Cochrane review on statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease,4 which had incorporated the findings and recommendations of the 2012 Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) meta-analysis.5 The 2012 CTT meta-analysis reported that statins significantly reduce major vascular events in people “with 5-year risk of major vascular events lower than 10%.” It concluded that the current major guidelines—ATP-III in the US, the European Society of Cardiology task force, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines in the UK—“might need to be reconsidered.” The 2013 Cochrane review stated: “in light of new evidence derived from the CTT Collaboration on primary prevention, there is a need to update existing cost-effective analysis.” We based our comments about “proposed standards” on these calls to update existing recommendations. Although we had no advanced knowledge of the contents of the forthcoming ACC/AHA cholesterol treatment guidelines, we anticipated that these findings and recommendations would be influential. > “Abramson and colleagues state: ‘Under the proposed 2013 standards, however, no level of risk would preclude statin therapy’” The 2012 CTT meta-analysis concluded: “The present report shows that statins are indeed both effective and safe for …
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 | 0.031 | 0.286 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.046 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
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".