Faculty Opinions recommendation of Use of aspirin to reduce risk of initial vascular events in patients at moderate risk of cardiovascular disease (ARRIVE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background-The use of aspirin in the primary prevention of cardiovascular events remains controversial.We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of aspirin versus placebo in patients with a moderate estimated risk of a first cardiovascular event.Methods-ARRIVE is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study done in seven countries.Eligible patients were aged 55 years (men) or 60 years (women) and older and had an average cardiovascular risk, deemed to be moderate on the basis of the number of specific risk factors.We excluded patients at high risk of gastrointestinal bleeding or other bleeding, or diabetes.Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with a computer-generated randomisation code to receive enteric-coated aspirin tablets (100 mg) or placebo tablets, once daily.Patients, investigators, and others involved in treatment or data analysis were masked to treatment allocation.The primary efficacy endpoint was a composite outcome of time to first occurrence of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, stroke, or transient ischaemic attack.Safety endpoints were haemorrhagic events and incidence of other adverse events, and were analysed in the intention-to-treat population.This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00501059.Findings-Between July 5, 2007, and Nov 15, 2016, 12 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive aspirin (n=6270) or placebo (n=6276) at 501 study sites.Median follow-up was 60 months.In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary endpoint occurred in 269 (4•29%) patients in the aspirin group versus 281 (4•48%) patients in the placebo group (hazard ratio [HR] 0•96; 95% CI 0•81-1•13; p=0•6038).Gastrointestinal bleeding events (mostly mild) occurred in 61 (0•97%) patients in the aspirin group versus 29 (0•46%) in the placebo group (HR 2•11; 95% CI 1•36-3•28; p=0•0007).The overall incidence rate of serious adverse events was similar in both treatment groups (n=1266 [20•19%] in the aspirin group vs n=1311 [20•89%] in the placebo group.
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 | 0.004 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.100 | 0.028 |
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".