Comparison of the effect of 40 and 80 mg/day doses of atorvastatin on changes in lipid profiles among acute coronary syndrome patients: A randomized clinical trial study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Statins play a vital role in the management of high-risk patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two doses of 40 and 80 mg of atorvastatin on lipid profiles and inflammatory markers among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Materials and Methods: This single-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted on 60 patients with ACS referred to Heshmatiyeh Hospital, Sabzevar, Iran. Eligible subjects were randomly assigned to either 80 mg/day (atorvastatin, 80 mg/day) or 40 mg/day intervention (atorvastatin, 40 mg/day) groups. Serum lipid profiles (low-density lipoprotein [LDL], high-density lipoprotein [HDL], triglyceride [TG], and total cholesterol), an inflammatory marker (creatine phosphokinase [CPK]), and liver function biomarkers (alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase) were assessed before starting treatment and 3 months later. Results: > 0.05). Conclusion: Findings suggest that increasing the dose of atorvastatin decreases the mean serum levels of LDL and CPK but has no effect on the mean serum HDL levels and liver function biomarkers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".