Effect of Rosiglitazone on Progression of Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Artery Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rosiglitazone has several properties that may affect progression of atherosclerosis. The Assessment on the Prevention of Progression by Rosiglitazone on Atherosclerosis in Diabetes Patients With Cardiovascular History (APPROACH) study was undertaken to determine the effect of the thiazolidinedione rosiglitazone on coronary atherosclerosis as assessed by intravascular ultrasound compared with the sulfonylurea glipizide. METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a randomized, double-blind, controlled 18-month study in 672 patients aged 30 to 80 years with established type 2 diabetes mellitus treated by lifestyle, 1 oral agent, or submaximal doses of 2 oral agents who had at least 1 atherosclerotic plaque with 10% to 50% luminal narrowing in a coronary artery that had not undergone intervention during a clinically indicated coronary angiography or percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was change in percent atheroma volume in the longest and least angulated epicardial coronary artery that had not undergone intervention. Secondary outcomes included change in normalized total atheroma volume and change in total atheroma volume in the most diseased baseline 10-mm segment. Rosiglitazone did not significantly reduce the primary outcome of percent atheroma volume compared with glipizide (-0.64%; 95% confidence interval, -1.46 to 0.17; P=0.12). The secondary outcome of normalized total atheroma volume was significantly reduced by rosiglitazone compared with glipizide (-5.1 mm(3); 95% confidence interval, -10.0 to -0.3; P=0.04); however, no significant difference between groups was observed for the change in total atheroma volume within the most diseased baseline 10-mm segment (-1.7 mm(3); 95% confidence interval, -3.9 to 0.5; P=0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Rosiglitazone did not significantly decrease the primary end point of progression of coronary atherosclerosis more than glipizide in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary atherosclerosis. Clinical Trial Registration- http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00116831.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".