Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cardiovascular polypill or fixed-dose combination pill, consisting of 3, 4, or more drugs in a single tablet (or capsule), has been proposed as an effective and convenient therapy in both secondary and primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Each of the drugs in the combination has a documented ability to prevent CVD events. The combined effect has been estimated to reduce risk by 75% to 80%. Since the concept was introduced 15 years ago, several polypills are available and their effects on risk factors evaluated. Their effects on individual risk factors, such as hypertension and elevated low-density lipoprotein levels, are similar to the individual drugs separately. Enhancement of adherence of the polypill has also been shown compared to individual drugs given separately. Based on the reductions on the individual risk factors, the reductions in risk are estimated to be substantial. A few large long-term randomized controlled trials are ongoing and will be completed in the next 2 years. If the effects on CVD outcomes are as predicted, this would help the many millions of individuals who are currently not adequately treated or not treated at all. There are however considerable challenges in development and acceptance of the polypill. These include regulatory issues; intellectual property; perception by the public, patients, and physicians; and the role of health systems and societal approach to disease prevention. For the polypill to be accepted and achieve even a part of its potential, multiple barriers outlined in this review have to be overcome.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".