Effects of n-3 fatty acids on long-term outcomes of high risk patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus or IGF/IGT with a recent myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The ORIGIN trial showed that daily supplementation with 1 g of n–3 fatty acids did not reduce the rate of Cardiovascular (CV) events in high risk patients with type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (DM) or IFG/IGT. This ancillary analysis of the trial is aimed to evaluate the effect of this treatment in the subgroup of patients with a recent Myocardial Infarction (MI) in whom the use of n–3 fatty acids has been previously demonstrated to be able to prevent CV events in patients within 3 months of a MI. Methods: The ORIGIN study randomly assigned patients to receive a 1g capsule containing at least 900 mg (90% or more) of ethyl esters of n–3 fatty acids or placebo daily. Long term outcomes were compared between n–3 fatty acids and placebo in the subgroup of patients with a recent MI (<6 months). Estimates of the hazard ratios and two-sided 95% confidence intervals were calculated with the use of a Cox regression model stratified according to study treatments, baseline metabolic status and a history of CV disease. Results: Of the 12,536 patients entered in ORIGIN, 931 suffered a MI in the 6 months prior to randomization. Mean age was 62 years, female gender accounted for 23% of the cases. The incidences of the primary outcome of the study (CV death) and of other relevant CV event during a median follow-up period of 6.2 years are reported in the Table. Conclusions: As in the overall population of the study of high risk patients with a recent diagnosis of DM or IGT/IGF, a daily supplementation with 1 g of n–3 fatty acids did not reduce the rate of CV events even in those with a recent MI.
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) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".