MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Rosiglitazone on Progression of Coronary Atherosclerosis in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Artery Disease

2010· article· en· W2135683342 on OpenAlexaff
Hertzel C. Gerstein, Robert E. Ratner, Christopher P. Cannon, Patrick W. Serruys, Hector Garcia-Garcia, Gerrit‐Anne van Es, Nikheel S. Kolatkar, Barbara G. Kravitz, Diane Miller, Chun Huang, Peter J. Fitzgerald, Richard W. Nesto

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicPeroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptors
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health SciencesGlaxoSmithKline (Canada)
FundersBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsMedicineRosiglitazoneInternal medicineCardiologyCoronary artery diseaseDiabetes mellitusCoronary atherosclerosisType 2 Diabetes MellitusCoronary heart diseaseDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.118
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.213 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicPeroxisome Proliferator-Activated ReceptorsFrench-language works237,207