Placebo Adherence, Clinical Outcomes, and Mortality in the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Hormone Therapy Trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Medication adherence may be a proxy for healthy behaviors and other factors that affect outcomes. Prior studies of the association between placebo adherence and health outcomes have been limited primarily to men enrolled in clinical trials and cardiovascular disease outcomes. We examined associations between adherence to placebo and the risk of fracture, coronary heart disease, cancer, and all-cause mortality in the 2 Women's Health Initiative hormone therapy randomized trials. METHODS: Postmenopausal women randomized to placebo with adherence measured at least once were eligible for analysis. Time-varying adherence was assessed by dispensing history and pill counts. Outcome adjudication was based on physician review of medical records. Cox proportional hazards models evaluated the relation between high adherence (≥80%) to placebo and various outcomes, referent to low adherence (<80%). RESULTS: A total of 13,444 postmenopausal women were under observation for 106,066 person-years. High placebo adherence was inversely associated with most outcomes including hip fracture [hazard ratio (HR), 0.50; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.33-0.78], myocardial infarction (HR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50-0.95), cancer death (HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.43-0.82), and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.51-0.80) after adjustment for potential confounders. Women with low adherence to placebo were 20% more likely to have low adherence to statins and osteoporosis medications. CONCLUSIONS: In the Women's Health Initiative clinical trials, high adherence to placebo was associated with favorable clinical outcomes and mortality. Until the healthy behaviors and/or other factors for which high adherence is a proxy can be better elucidated, caution is warranted when interpreting the magnitude of benefit of medication adherence.
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 | 0.081 | 0.142 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".