Effects of Vitamin E on Cardiovascular and Microvascular Outcomes in High-Risk Patients With Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Experimental and observational studies suggest that vitamin E may reduce the risk of cardiovascular (CV) events and of microvascular complications in people with diabetes. However, data from randomized clinical trials are limited. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of vitamin E supplementation on major CV outcomes and on the development of nephropathy in people with diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial is a randomized clinical trial with a 2 x 2 factorial design, which evaluated the effects of vitamin E and of ramipril in patients at high risk for CV events. Patients were eligible for the study if they were 55 years or older and if they had CV disease or diabetes with at least one additional coronary risk factor. The study was designed to recruit a large number of people with diabetes, and the analyses of the effects of vitamin E in this group were preplanned. Patients were randomly allocated to daily treatment with 400 IU vitamin E and with 10 mg ramipril or their respective placebos and were followed for an average of 4.5 years. The primary study outcome was the composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, or CV death. Secondary outcomes included total mortality, hospitalizations for heart failure, hospitalizations for unstable angina, revascularizations, and overt nephropathy. RESULTS: There were 3,654 people with diabetes. Vitamin E had a neutral effect on the primary study outcome (relative risk = 1.03, 95% CI 0.88-1.21; P = 0.70), on each component of the composite primary outcome, and on all predefined secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The daily administration of 400 IU vitamin E for an average of 4.5 years to middle-aged and elderly people with diabetes and CV disease and/or additional coronary risk factor(s) has no effect on CV outcomes or nephropathy.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".