Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Residual cardiovascular risk remains in individuals treated with statins and combination therapies may reduce this risk further. RECENT FINDINGS: Most previous trials of combination therapies have shown a favorable effect on lipid profiles without clinical superiority over statin monotherapy. Trial design has been hampered by short duration and comparison with a low dose statin. The Study of Heart and Renal Protection trial has recently reported findings and shows a benefit of ezetimibe/simvastatin over simvastatin alone. AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic syndrome with Low HDL/High Triglycerides and Impact on Global Health Outcomes), a trial of statin/niacin, has been prematurely halted for futility. Finally, combining a statin with both niacin and ezetimibe shows significant enhancement of the therapeutic effect on lipid profiles. SUMMARY: Current evidence continues to support initiation of a potent statin with titration to achieve targets. Combinations may be useful in individuals unable to reach desired lipid levels on maximal tolerated doses of statins.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".