Estimated Stroke-Free Survival of Folic Acid Therapy for Hypertensive Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The CSPPT (China Stroke Primary Prevention Trial) demonstrated a significant risk reduction of first stroke in hypertensive patients treated with enalapril plus folic acid compared with those with enalapril alone, but the lifetime stroke-free survival associated with the treatment is unknown. By establishing adjusted models for competing risks and an age-based time scale using data from 19 053 participants of the CSPPT, we estimated lifetime incremental stroke-free survival for enalapril-folic acid versus enalapril alone. Compared with enalapril alone, the enalapril plus folic acid treatment projected a mean lifetime stroke-free survival gain of 1.75 months, with an interquartile range from 0.73 to 2.39 months and the maximum gain up to 12.95 months. Subgroup analyses showed greater gain in stroke-free survival in younger, male patients, those with lower baseline folate levels, higher baseline systolic blood pressure, higher baseline total cholesterol and blood glucose, and with MTHFR (methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase) C677T CT or TT genotype. Overall, besides significant benefit in certain subgroups, enalapril plus folic acid treatment for hypertensive patients is associated with a modest gain in lifetime stroke-free survival, compared with enalapril alone.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".