High dose lisinopril was more effective than low dose for reducing combined mortality and cardiovascular events in congestive heart failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1999) Circulation 100, 2312. Packer M, Poole-Wilson PA, Armstrong PW . , et al, on behalf of the ATLAS Study Group . . Comparative effects of low and high doses of the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, lisinopril, on morbidity and mortality in chronic heart failure. . Dec 7; . : . –8. . [OpenUrl][1][Abstract/FREE Full Text][2] QUESTION: In patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), is high dose lisinopril more effective than low dose lisinopril for reducing mortality and admission to hospital rates? Randomised (allocation concealment unclear*), blinded (patients, investigators, and outcome assessors),* controlled trial with 3 year follow up. 287 hospitals in 19 countries. 3793 patients were screened, and 3164 (mean age 63.6 y, 80% men) were studied. Inclusion criteria were New York Heart Association class II, III, or IV CHF, despite use of diuretics for ≥2 months, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤30%. Exclusion criteria were recent revascularisation procedure or ischaemic event, history of ventricular tachycardia, intolerance to angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, serum creatinine levels >2.5 mg/dl, or non-cardiac disorders that could limit survival. Follow up was 100%. Patients received their usual CHF medications … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DCirculation%26rft.stitle%253DCirculation%26rft.issn%253D0009-7322%26rft.aulast%253DPacker%26rft.auinit1%253DM.%26rft.volume%253D100%26rft.issue%253D23%26rft.spage%253D2312%26rft.epage%253D2318%26rft.atitle%253DComparative%2BEffects%2Bof%2BLow%2Band%2BHigh%2BDoses%2Bof%2Bthe%2BAngiotensin-Converting%2BEnzyme%2BInhibitor%252C%2BLisinopril%252C%2Bon%2BMorbidity%2Band%2BMortality%2Bin%2BChronic%2BHeart%2BFailure%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1161%252F01.CIR.100.23.2312%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10587334%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/ijlink?linkType=ABST&journalCode=circulationaha&resid=100/23/2312&atom=%2Febmed%2F5%2F4%2F110.atom
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Randomized trial | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".