The HOPE (Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation) Study and its Consequences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The HOPE study was a 19 country, prospective randomized trial in which the ACE-inhibitor Ramipril but not Vitamin E significantly reduced the risk of future cardiovascular events in a high-risk population of men and women, including many with diabetes. The benefits were present in all sub-groups, independent of the presence or absence of diabetes, hypertension, evidence of cardiovascular disease, microalbuminuria, blood pressure lowering, the use of aspirin, lipid-lowering or antihypertensive medication. It provided clear evidence that Ramipril should safely and cost-effectively be used in individuals not known to have low ventricular ejection fraction or heart failure but at high-risk of cardiovascular events. It was also beneficial in patients with renal insufficiency, reducing progression of proteinuria and development of new microalbuminuria. It provided micro- and macrovascular benefits in people with diabetes, reduced the development of new cases of diabetes and showed a positive and graded association between the waist-to-hip ratio and the risk of developing diabetes. Sub-studies completed and on-going into the predictive role of natriuretic peptides, infectious and inflammatory markers, provide insight into possible mechanisms of action of Ramipril.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".