Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ONTARGET Trial Programme includes the ONTARGET and TRANSCEND studies. In both studies, participants were at high cardiovascular risk because they had vascular disease without heart failure, or diabetes with end-organ damage. Participants also received proven therapies for cardiovascular risk reduction. In ONTARGET, telmisartan 80 mg was compared with ramipril 10 mg, and the combination of telmisartan and ramipril was compared with ramipril alone. Telmisartan was as effective as ramipril on the primary outcome and other cardiovascular events and was better tolerated, with fewer treatment discontinuations. In TRANSCEND, telmisartan and placebo, both added to background therapy, were compared in high-risk patients intolerant to angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitors. There was a lower incidence of cardiovascular events than assumed in power calculations probably due to higher use of background therapy than expected based upon the HOPE trial. This may explain why the reduction in the primary outcome associated with telmisartan was not statistically significant. Nevertheless, the results of TRANSCEND were consistent with the outcome of the HOPE trial, and the secondary endpoint in TRANSCEND, which was equal to the HOPE primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke), was indeed significant. Telmisartan plus ramipril did not reduce the primary outcome compared with ramipril alone and was associated with a greater likelihood of adverse events. The combination is not recommended for the prevention of cardiovascular events in this patient population. In summary, telmisartan was as effective as ramipril on major vascular events in high-risk patients in ONTARGET but showed a non-significant benefit in TRANSCEND. In both studies, the lower rate of treatment discontinuations with telmisartan is important life-long adherence to therapy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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, 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".