Bibliographic record
Abstract
The failure of the cholesterol ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor, torcetrapib, has led to questions regarding whether the molecule itself or the mechanism of CETP inhibition was responsible for the adverse cardiovascular outcomes. Given the association with increases in blood pressure and plasma aldosterone levels, torcetrapib has been postulated to have adverse 'off-target' effects. In this issue of British Journal of Pharmacology, Forrest and co-workers have elegantly investigated these effects, demonstrating two salient points -- (1) the pressor effect of torcetrapib is independent of CETP inhibition and (2) although associated with hyperaldosteronism, the pressor effect is likely not mediated by hyperaldosteronism. Anacetrapib, by contrast, did not demonstrate any pressor or off-target effects. Despite these findings, it remains to be proven whether the adverse cardiovascular outcomes from torcetrapib were indeed related to the pressor effects and whether CETP inhibition by other agents will result in beneficial clinical outcomes. Yet, the studies of Forrest and co-workers do bring us closer to unravelling the reasons behind the failure of torcetrapib.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".