Efficacy and Safety of Huxin Formula in Patients after CABG: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is widely used in the treatment of coronary artery disease. A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Huxin Formula post CABG. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 270 inpatients with coronary heart disease participated in this study. CABG patients in the control group were treated with placebo, while patients in the experimental group were treated with Huxin Formula 1 week after the surgery. All patients were treated for 6 months and followed up for another 6 months. The main outcomes (death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and readmission) were assessed 360 days after treatment, and secondary outcomes (frequency and scores of angina pectoris, etc.) were assessed 0, 90, 180, 270, and 360 days after treatment. RESULTS: Our results showed no significant difference between the 2 groups for the primary endpoints. In patients with cardiac function class II (New York Heart Association), the score of angina pectoris was significantly lower (3.88 ± 3.86 vs. 5.45 ± 3.59) and the frequency of angina pectoris attacks was less (0.96 ± 1.01 vs. 1.36 ± 0.94) after 90 days of treatment with Huxin Formula compared to placebo (p < 0.05). In patients with 3 coronary vessel lesions, the cardiac function class (1.14 ± 0.35 vs. 1.05 ± 0.21) after 360 days was significantly higher in the control group compared to the treatment group (p < 0.05). There were no obvious adverse reactions. CONCLUSION: Huxin Formula may improve cardiac function of patients with 3 coronary vessel lesions and relieve symptoms of patients with cardiac function class II but failed to show superiority in primary outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".