Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this mini-review, the evidence for safety and efficacy of currently available statins is discussed. Large-scale, long-term clinical studies have documented an outstanding efficacy and safety profile for statin monotherapy when used at pharmacological doses. Non-life-threatening side effects may occur in up to 15% of patients receiving one statin. Sporadic reports show possible adverse effects of statins on nervous system function including mood alterations. More serious side effects may also occur but at much lower rates. Significant elevations in the activity of serum aminotransferase and creatine kinase alone or in combination with muscle pain in statin-treated patients should be taken seriously; under these conditions, monitoring the statin dose or its discontinuation must be considered. Unlike monotherapy, combination therapy is more problematic. Particularly, combination of the statins with gemfibrozil results in higher rates of drug toxicity. Co-administration of statins with other drugs, especially those which may interfere with the cytochrome P450 system, should be considered carefully. Special attention must be paid to the tolerability of the statins in elderly and transplant patients. The safety of statins in children and adolescents has not yet been well-documented, thus, statin therapy is not routinely recommended in this group of hyperlipidaemic subjects. Future clinical studies and surveillance information will warrant long-term safety of each member of this class of lipid-lowering agents.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".