Bibliographic record
Abstract
The renin angiotensin system (RAAS) plays an important role in the pathophysiology of cardiovascular (CV) disease. Modulation of RAAS with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi), angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB), and aldosterone inhibitors reduces a range of adverse CV outcomes in patients with or at risk of CV disease. Currently, there is incomplete evidence to show all RAAS modulators provide vascular protection by reducing the incidence of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke and CV death. In patients at high risk for CV events, studies with ACEi designed to test for long-term vascular protection, showed benefit. In contrast, studies of ARBs in patients with hypertension, heart failure, and renal disease have not consistently shown a reduction of CV outcomes. However, none of these studies was specifically designed to examine the impact of ARBs on the vascular protective outcomes of CV death, non-fatal MI, and stroke. The ONTARGET and TRANSCEND studies are designed to determine whether the ARB telmisartan is similar (or non-inferior) or superior to the ACEi ramipril in the reduction of CV events in patients with established CV disease or diabetes with target organ damage. The ONTARGET study has enrolled 25,620, and TRANSCEND 5,776 subjects. The subjects in both trials are similar to those studied in the HOPE study, yet there is greater ethnic diversity, a higher proportion of patients with cerebro-vascular disease, and a greater use of beta blockers and lipid-lowering treatment. The studies completed recruitment in 2004, and are due to complete follow-up and report the results in 2008. The ONTARGET and TRANSCEND studies will provide valuable comparative data on the efficacy of telmisartan and ramipril and their combination in patients at high risk for CV events. Although it is possible that enhanced benefits will be observed with dual therapy, the outcomes with ARB monotherapy remain uncertain.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.044 | 0.017 |
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".