MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Abstract 15238: Impact of Statins on All-Cause Mortality in Subjects With Severe Coronary Artery Calcium Score: Results Form the Confirm (Coronary Ct Angiography Evaluation for Clinical Outcomes: An International Multicenter Registry) Registry

2022· article· en· W4380785710 on OpenAlexaff
Dhiran Verghese, April Kinninger, Venkat Sanjay Manubolu, Jairo Aldana-Bitar, L. Alalawi, James K. Min, James P. Earls, Stephan Achenbach, Ashley Dunham, Tami Crabtree, Heidi Gransar, Mouaz H. Al‐Mallah, Jeroen J. Bax, Daniel S. Berman, Filippo Cademartiri, Tracy Q. Callister, Hyuk‐Jae Chang, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Ricardo C. Cury, Gudrun Feuchtner, Martin Hadamitzky, Jöerg Hausleiter, Philipp A. Kaufmann, Jonathon Leipsic, Fay Y. Lin, Yong-Jin Kim, Hugo Marques, Gianluca Pontone, Ronen Rubinshtein, Todd C. Villines, Leslee J. Shaw, Matthew J. Budoff

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioInternal medicineStatinProportional hazards modelCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyDiabetes mellitusConfidence intervalClinical endpointClinical trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Coronary artery calcium (CAC) score improves prognostic accuracy of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease outcomes. However, the relative impact of statins on outcomes stratified by CAC score is limited. Methods: The open-label, 12-center, 6-country prospective longitudinal CONFIRM registry was queried. Individuals with severe CAC (≥300), with long term follow up were selected. Subjects with prior ASCVD events were excluded. The primary study end point was all-cause mortality (ACM) which was compared in individuals on stain versus those not on statin. Kaplan-Meier cumulative incidence curves were performed and compared with log rank test. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression analysis was used to calculate hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Results: Of 21,863 participants from the CONFRIM registry, 5,928 had no prior ASCVD events and had information on CAC and statin use. Of these, 972 had a CAC score of ≥300. The mean age of statin users and non-users with CAC≥300 was similar at 67.7± 9.0 vs. 66.9±10.5; p=0.166, and both groups were predominantly male (70% vs 69%, p=0.736). Statin users were more likely to have high cholesterol (93% vs 43%), hypertension (74% vs. 67%), diabetes mellitus (27% vs 20%), family history of cardiovascular disease (41% vs. 34%) and less likely to be a current smoker (22% vs 34%); all p<0.05. There were 42 (9%) deaths over a mean follow-up of 4.2 years among statin users and 86 (18%) deaths over 3.9 years in non-users. In multivariable proportional hazard Cox modeling with a reference group of non-statin users, statin participants with CAC of ≥300 had significantly reduced risk for ACM, HR 0.52- (95% CI, 0.33-0.82, p=0.005). Conclusions: In this large prospective registry, in the primary prevention cohort of patients without prior ASCVD events, severe CAC ≥ 300 identified patients most likely to benefit from statin use. Statins lowered ACM in patients with CAC≥ 300 by 48%.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.150
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.280 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→