Effect of Amlodipine on the Progression of Atherosclerosis and the Occurrence of Clinical Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The results of angiographic studies have suggested that calcium channel-blocking agents may prevent new coronary lesion formation, the progression of minimal lesions, or both. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Prospective Randomized Evaluation of the Vascular Effects of Norvasc Trial (PREVENT) was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-masked clinical trial designed to test whether amlodipine would slow the progression of early coronary atherosclerosis in 825 patients with angiographically documented coronary artery disease. The primary outcome was the average 36-month angiographic change in mean minimal diameters of segments with a baseline diameter stenosis of 30%. A secondary hypothesis was whether amlodipine would reduce the rate of atherosclerosis in the carotid arteries as assessed with B-mode ultrasonography, which measured intimal-medial thicknesses (IMT). The rates of clinical events were also monitored. The placebo and amlodipine groups had nearly identical average 36-month reductions in the minimal diameter: 0.084 versus 0.095 mm, respectively (P:=0.38). In contrast, amlodipine had a significant effect in slowing the 36-month progression of carotid artery atherosclerosis: the placebo group experienced a 0.033-mm increase in IMT, whereas there was a 0. 0126-mm decrease in the amlodipine group (P:=0.007). There was no treatment difference in the rates of all-cause mortality or major cardiovascular events, although amlodipine use was associated with fewer cases of unstable angina and coronary revascularization. CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine has no demonstrable effect on angiographic progression of coronary atherosclerosis or the risk of major cardiovascular events but is associated with fewer hospitalizations for unstable angina and revascularization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".