MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Aspirin to Prevent Cardiovascular Disease: The Association of Aspirin Dose and Clopidogrel With Thrombosis and Bleeding

2009· article· en· W2167140116 on OpenAlexaff
Steven R. Steinhubl

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAspirinHazard ratioClopidogrelInternal medicineInterquartile rangeMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)PlaceboClinical endpointIncidence (geometry)Randomized controlled trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The optimal aspirin dose for the prevention of cardiovascular events remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To assess the incidence of and risk factors for adverse clinical outcomes by investigator-determined aspirin dose in a primary prevention trial. DESIGN: Post hoc observational analyses of data from a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial. SETTING: Outpatient. PATIENTS: 15 595 patients with cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors. INTERVENTION: Clopidogrel, 75 mg/d, or placebo, with aspirin, 75 to 162 mg/d, as selected by the investigators. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence of the composite outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death (efficacy end point), and incidence of severe or life-threatening bleeding (safety end point), at a median of 28 months (interquartile range, 23 to 31 months) of follow-up. RESULTS: Daily aspirin doses were categorized as less than 100 mg (75 or 81 mg) (n = 7180), 100 mg (n = 4961), and greater than 100 mg (150 or 162 mg) (n = 3454). The hazard of the primary efficacy end point was the same regardless of dose (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.13] for 100 mg vs. less than 100 mg, and 1.0 [CI, 0.85 to 1.18] for greater than 100 mg vs. less than 100 mg). The hazard of the primary safety end point also did not depend on dose (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.85 [CI, 0.57 to 1.26] for 100 mg vs. less than 100 mg and 1.05 [CI, 0.74 to 1.48] for greater than 100 mg vs. less than 100 mg). In patients also receiving clopidogrel, daily aspirin doses greater than 100 mg seemed to be non-statistically significantly associated with reduced efficacy (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.16 [CI, 0.93 to 1.44]) and increased harm (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.30 [CI, 0.83 to 2.04]). LIMITATION: The analysis was post hoc, and aspirin use was not randomized or blinded. CONCLUSION: Daily aspirin doses of 100 mg or greater were associated with no clear benefit in patients taking aspirin only and possibly with harm in patients taking clopidogrel. Daily doses of 75 to 81 mg may optimize efficacy and safety for patients requiring aspirin for long-term prevention, especially for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.362

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations182
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Internal MedicineSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207