MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763914808 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx493.4881

4881Empagliflozin reduces mortality in analyses adjusted for control of blood pressure, low density lipoprotein cholesterol and HbA1c over time

2017· article· en· W2763914808 on OpenAlexaff
Bernard Zinman, Chantal Mathieu, Stefan Kaspers, Michaela Mattheus, H.J. Woerle, David Fitchett

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureInternal medicineCardiologyCholesterolLdl cholesterol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In EMPA-REG OUTCOME, empagliflozin given in addition to standard of care significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular (CV) (HR 0.62 [95% CI 0.49, 0.77]) and all-cause (0.68 [0.57, 0.82]) mortality vs placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes and established CV disease. We investigated the effects of controlling blood pressure (BP), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and HbA1c on the treatment difference in mortality. Methods: Patients were randomised to empagliflozin 10 mg, empagliflozin 25 mg, or placebo. CV and all-cause mortality were assessed in the pooled empagliflozin group vs placebo adjusting for control of BP, LDL-C and HbA1c at baseline and during the study as time-dependent covariates. Control was defined as systolic BP <140 mmHg and diastolic BP <90 mmHg, LDL-C <100 mg/dL, and HbA1c <7.5%. Results: Adjusting for control of BP, LDL-C, HbA1c and all these covariates at baseline and during the study, HRs for CV death with empagliflozin vs placebo were 0.61 (0.49, 0.76), 0.59 (0.47, 0.75), 0.62 (0.49, 0.78) and 0.61 (0.48, 0.76), and for all-cause mortality were 0.67 (0.56, 0.81), 0.66 (0.55, 0.79), 0.67 (0.56, 0.81) and 0.67 (0.56, 0.81), respectively (Figure).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207