MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085670902 · doi:10.1136/ebn.8.3.86

Review: statins reduce non-fatal and fatal strokes in patients with and without coronary heart disease

2005· letter· en· W2085670902 on OpenAlexaff
Kori Kingsbury

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Nursing · 2005
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWeb of scienceInternal medicinePlaceboCoronary heart diseaseCochrane LibraryRandomized controlled trialGastroenterologyMeta-analysisPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Briel M, Studer M, Glass TR, et al . Effects of statins on stroke prevention in patients with and without coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Am J Med 2004;117:596–606.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients with and without coronary heart disease (CHD), what are the effects of lipid lowering interventions (statins, fibrates, resins, n-3 fatty acids, and diet) for preventing non-fatal and fatal strokes? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Data sources: Medline, EMBASE/Excerpta Medica, Pascal, and Index Medicus (all from inception to August 2002); Cochrane Library (searched August 2002); bibliographies of relevant articles; and contact with investigators. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Study selection and assessment: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in any language that compared dietary or pharmaceutical lipid lowering interventions with placebo or usual diet, had follow up ⩾6 months, and had … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DThe%2BAmerican%2Bjournal%2Bof%2Bmedicine%26rft.stitle%253DAm%2BJ%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DBriel%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%26rft.volume%253D117%26rft.issue%253D8%26rft.spage%253D596%26rft.epage%253D606%26rft.atitle%253DEffects%2Bof%2Bstatins%2Bon%2Bstroke%2Bprevention%2Bin%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2Band%2Bwithout%2Bcoronary%2Bheart%2Bdisease%253A%2Ba%2Bmeta-analysis%2Bof%2Brandomized%2Bcontrolled%2Btrials.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252Fj.amjmed.2004.04.022%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15465509%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=10.1016/j.amjmed.2004.04.022&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15465509&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F8%2F3%2F86.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000224439300009&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.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

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based NursingSame topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular HealthFrench-language works237,207