Statin Therapy and Outcomes in Trials of Nintedanib in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular comorbidities are frequent in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), and many patients with IPF receive treatment with statins to reduce cardiovascular risk. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether statin use at baseline was associated with differences in disease progression in placebo-treated patients or influenced the treatment effect of nintedanib in the INPULSIS® trials. METHODS: Post-hoc subgroup analyses of patients receiving versus not receiving statins at baseline using pooled data from the INPULSIS® trials. RESULTS: At baseline, 312 patients received statins and 749 did not. The annual rates of decline in forced vital capacity (FVC) in patients treated with nintedanib and placebo, respectively, were -78.9 and -187.6 mL/year in patients who received statins at baseline, and -127.9 and -237.9 mL/year in patients who did not. The effect of nintedanib was consistent across subgroups (p = 0.9590). CONCLUSIONS: In the INPULSIS® trials, there was a numerically lower FVC decline in placebo-treated patients with IPF who received statins at baseline versus those who did not. Use of statins at baseline did not influence the treatment effect of nintedanib. Prospective data are needed to assess the impact of statins on the course of IPF.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it