The International Polycap Study-3 (TIPS-3): Design, baseline characteristics and challenges in conduct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is hypothesized that in individuals without clinical cardiovascular disease (CVD), but at increased CVD risk, a 50% to 60% reduction in CVD risk could be achieved using fixed dose combination (FDC) therapy (usually comprised of multiple blood-pressure agents and a statin [with or without aspirin]) in a single "polypill". However, the impact of a polypill in preventing clinical CV events has not been evaluated in a large randomized controlled trial. METHODS: TIPS-3 is a 2x2x2 factorial randomized controlled trial that will examine the effect of a FDC polypill on major CV outcomes in a primary prevention population. This study aims to determine whether the Polycap (comprised of atenolol, ramipril, hydrochlorothiazide, and a statin) reduces CV events in persons without a history of CVD, but who are at least at intermediate CVD risk. Additional interventions in the factorial design of the study will compare the effect of (1) aspirin versus placebo on CV events (and cancer), (2) vitamin D versus placebo on the risk of fractures, and (3) the combined effect of aspirin and the Polycap on CV events. RESULTS: The study has randomized 5713 participants across 9 countries. Mean age of the study population is 63.9 years, and 53% are female. Mean INTERHEART risk score is 16.8, which is consistent with a study population at intermediate CVD risk. CONCLUSION: Results of the TIP-3 study will be key to determining the appropriateness of FDC therapy as a strategy in the global prevention of CVD.
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 | 0.052 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".