MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P1104The effect of apabetalone on attenuated coronary atherosclerotic plaque: insights from the ASSURE trial

2017· article· en· W2763044721 on OpenAlexaff
Daisuke Shishikura, Yu Kataoka, Satoshi Honda, Kohei Takata, S.K. Kim, Jordan Andrews, Peter J. Psaltis, Jan J. Johansson, N. Wong, Stephen J. Nicholls

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsResverlogix (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Apabetalone, the first selective bromodomain and extra-terminal (BET) inhibitor, modulates lipid and inflammatory pathways implicated in atherosclerosis. The impact of apabetalone on attenuated plaque (AP), a measure of vulnerability, is unknown. Methods: The ApoA-1 Synthesis Stimulation and intravascular Ultrasound for coronary atheroma Regression Evaluation (ASSURE) study employed serial IVUS measures of coronary atheroma in 281 patients treated with RVX-208 or placebo for 26 weeks. Attenuated plaque (AP) was measured at baseline and follow-up. Factors associated with changes in AP were investigated. Results: AP was observed in 31 (11%) patients. The apabetalone group demonstrated reductions in AP length by 1 mm (P=0.03), AP arc by 37.0o (P=0.004) and the AP index (API) by 34.6 mmo (P=0.02). The change in API correlated with the on-treatment HDL particle concentration (r=-0.50, P=0.007), but not HDL-C (r=-0.20, P=0.36) or apoA-1 (r=-0.20, P=0.25). Multivariable analysis revealed that on-treatment concentrations of HDL (P=0.03) and VLDL (P=0.01) particle concentrations independently associated changes in API.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→