Health-related quality of life with rivaroxaban plus aspirin vs. aspirin alone in chronic stable cardiovascular disease: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aims This study aimed to compare the effects of the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin with aspirin alone on health-related quality of life in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) trial. Methods and results Health-related quality of life assessed using the EQ-5D-3L. The treatment effects on health utility and EQ visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) scores were compared between rivaroxaban plus aspirin and aspirin alone in terms of adjusted mean difference in change from baseline and odds ratio of having deterioration events. Nine thousand forty-nine (98.9%) and 6916 (75.5%) completed the EQ-5D-3L at baseline and at final visit, respectively. Nine thousand twenty-eight (98.9%) and 6887 (76.3%) completed the EQ-5D-3L at baseline and final visit, respectively. Mean (standard deviation) health utility and EQ VAS scores at baseline were 0.871 (0.141) and 76.0 (15.3), respectively, for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin group, compared with 0.873 (0.139) and 75.8 (15.1) for the aspirin group. Adjusted mean difference in change from baseline utility was −0.002 [95% confidence interval (CI), −0.006, 0.002, P = 0.30] between the combination therapy group and the aspirin group. The odds ratio (95% CI) of experiencing deterioration in health utility was 1.01 (95% CI, 0.93, 1.10, P = 0.81) between the two groups. Adjusted mean difference in change from baseline EQ VAS was 0.02 (95% CI, −0.43, 0.47, P = 0.93) between the two groups. Conclusion This analysis of the COMPASS trial demonstrated that the quality of life of patients was similar between the rivaroxaban plus aspirin group and the aspirin alone group. Registration Trial registration number: ClinicalTrials.gov number (NCT01776424). Trial protocol and statistical analysis plan: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1709118#APPNEJMoa1709118PRO.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it