MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092544555 · doi:10.1136/ebm1412

Valsartan is more effective than placebo in reducing the incidence of diabetes in people with impaired glucose tolerance and cardiovascular disease or risk factors but has no effect on cardiovascular outcomes: Table 1

2011· letter· en· W2092544555 on OpenAlexaff
Yves Lacourcière, Luc Poirier

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood Pressure and Hypertension Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)PlaceboValsartanMyocardial infarctionType 2 diabetesStroke (engine)Impaired glucose toleranceGastroenterologyLower riskCumulative incidenceEndocrinologyPathologyBlood pressure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Commentary on: McMurray JJ, Holman RR, Haffner SM, et al.; NAVIGATOR Study Group. Effect of valsartan on the incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular events. N Engl J Med 2010;362:1477–90[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3]. Impaired glucose tolerance, which represents an intermediate stage before the onset of diabetes, is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular diseases. Moreover, the concomitant presence of confirmed cardiovascular disease or cardiovascular risk factors in glucose-intolerant patients significantly augments their risk of cardiovascular events. Among the different treatment strategies used in high-risk patients, blockade of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) has been shown to decrease the onset of new diabetes as well as the incidence of cardiovascular events. Therefore, the NAVIGATOR study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of blocking the RAS on the incidence of predetermined cardiovascular events such as myocardial infarction and stroke and on the prevalence of new diabetes. This was a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DN%2BEngl%2BJ%2BMed%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa1001121%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F20228403%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/NEJMoa1001121&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=20228403&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F16%2F4%2F122.atom

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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Commentary

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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicBlood Pressure and Hypertension StudiesFrench-language works237,207