Statin induced regression of cardiomyopathy trial: A randomized, placebo-controlled double-blind trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), characterized by a thickened, fibrotic myocardium, remains the most common cause of sudden cardiac death in young adults. Based on animal and clinical data, we hypothesized that atorvastatin would induce left ventricular (LV) mass regression.Methods: Statin Induced Regression of Cardiomyopathy Trial (SIRCAT) was a randomized, placebo-controlled study. The primary endpoint was change in LV mass measured by cardiac magnetic resonance imaging 12 months after treatment with once-daily atorvastatin 80 mg or placebo. A key secondary endpoint was diastolic dysfunction measured echocardiographically by transmitral flow velocities. SIRCAT is registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00317967).Results: Of 222 screened patients, 22 were randomized evenly to atorvastatin and placebo. The mean age was 47 ± 10 years, and 15 (68%) were male. All subjects completed the protocol. At baseline, LV masses were 197 ± 76 g and 205 ± 82 g in the placebo and atorvastatin groups, respectively. After 12 months treatment, the LV masses in the placebo and atorvastatin groups were 196 ± 80 versus 206 ± 92 g (P = 0.80), respectively. Echocardiographic indices were not different in the two groups at baseline. After 12 months, diastolic dysfunction as assessed using transmitral flow velocities E/E', A/A', and peak systolic mitral velocity showed no benefit from atorvastatin.Conclusions: In patients with HCM, atorvastatin did not cause LV mass regression or improvements in LV diastolic function.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".