Comparison of the outcomes of the prolonged antianginal therapy use in stable coronary artery disease patients according to the data of randomized and observational studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results of treatment with antianginal drug nicorandil in patients with stable coronary artery disease according to the results of the observational study (OS) «NIKEA» and randomized controlled trial (RCT) «IONA». METHODS: «NIKEA » observational program included 590 patients with stable angina pectoris. Subgroups in the OS were formed based on the adherence to nicorandil use. Adherence was assessed during follow-up direct questioning. «IONA » RCT included 5126 patients with stable angina pectoris. RESULTS: Follow-up period and mean age of patients were equal in OS and RCT. In OS the group of adherent to nicorandil use patients had fewer males, life-saving drugs were administered significantly more often than in RCT, comorbidities (arterial hypertension, peripheral atherosclerosis and diabetes mellitus) were more pronounced. Angina pectoris class III was diagnosed in 32% of the OS patients vs 11% of the RCT patients, and class I - in 4.4% and 26%, respectively (р<0.001). Both in RCT and OS, there were significantly fewer cases of all cardiovascular events in the groups of nicorandil and adherent to nicorandil use patients in comparison with the groups of placebo and nonadherent patients. Both in RCT and OS the use of nicorandil led to significant decrease in the risk of all cardiovascular events. CONCLUSION: Results of the efficacy and effectiveness studies complement each other and give the opportunity to assess the realisation of the RCT results in real clinical practice.
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 | 0.033 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".