MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 15091: Significant Reductions in Both Adjudicated and Investigator-Reported Ischemic Events in REDUCE-IT

2020· article· en· W3100021729 on OpenAlexaff
Deepak L. Bhatt, Robert P. Giugliano, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Michael Miller, Eliot A. Brinton, Terry A. Jacobson, Steven Ketchum, Rebecca A. Juliano, Lisa Jiao, Ralph T. Doyle, Craig Granowitz, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Christie M. Ballantyne, Duane S. Pinto, Matthew J. Budoff, C. Michael Gibson

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical endpointMyocardial infarctionUnstable anginaHazard ratioInternal medicineStroke (engine)PlaceboCardiologyClinical trialEmergency medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: REDUCE-IT was an event-driven trial that randomized 8,179 statin-treated patients with controlled LDL-C and moderately elevated triglycerides to icosapent ethyl (IPE) 4g daily or placebo, with a median of 4.9 years of follow-up. There was a significant reduction in the prespecified adjudicated rates of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular [CV] death, non-fatal myocardial infarction [MI], non-fatal stroke, coronary revascularization, and unstable angina requiring hospitalization) and of the key secondary endpoint (CV death, MI, stroke), as well as in all the primary endpoint components. We sought to determine the effect of IPE on investigator-reported events. Methods: The Clinical Endpoint Committee (CEC) blindly adjudicated investigator-reported events according to a prespecified charter. Medical records and reports were also reviewed to assess for clinical events not reported by investigators. An endpoint management team compiled and electronically provided event packets to the CEC via an adjudication database. The CEC Chair provided final adjudication if the two primary adjudicators could not reach consensus. Results: IPE significantly reduced the rate of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio 0.74, p=0.0000000002) and the key secondary endpoint (hazard ratio 0.75, p=0.000007) as reported by the site investigators, with consistent benefits in each component of the primary endpoint (Table). There was a high degree of concordance between investigator-reported and adjudicated endpoints. Conclusions: Icosapent ethyl significantly reduced multiple types of ischemic events, both by independent, blinded adjudication as well as by investigator-reported assessment. These results underscore the robustness of the benefits of icosapent ethyl seen in REDUCE-IT.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→