Reduction of cardiovascular events and microvascular complications in diabetes with ACE inhibitor treatment: HOPE and MICRO-HOPE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study, an international randomized trial, was designed to evaluate the effects of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor ramipril and vitamin E in patients at high risk for cardiovascular events. The study did not detect any cardiovascular benefit or harm using vitamin E. Results for the vitamin E arm are not discussed here. Of 9541 patients, 3577 with diabetes received either ramipril (10 mg) or placebo. Among these patients, ramipril use was associated with a significant 25% reduction in risk for the composite endpoint of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or cardiovascular death after a median follow-up period of 4.5 years. This benefit was independent of any blood pressure-lowering effect. The Microalbuminuria, Cardiovascular, and Renal Outcomes in HOPE (MICRO-HOPE) substudy in this patient population showed that ramipril treatment was associated with a decreased risk of development of overt nephropathy. Use of a composite measure of microvascular complications also suggested a protective effect of ramipril treatment. An interesting finding in the HOPE study is that ramipril treatment was associated with a significant 34% reduction in new diagnoses of diabetes. The possibility that ACE inhibitor treatment with ramipril may prevent new diabetes in non-diabetic patients at high risk of the disease is to be examined prospectively in the Diabetes Reduction Assessment with ramipril and rosiglitazone (DREAM) trial.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".