MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404448955 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2405923

Routine Spironolactone in Acute Myocardial Infarction

2024· article· en· W4404448955 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sanjit S. Jolly, Marc-André d’Entremont, Bertram Pitt, Shun Fu Lee, Rajibul Mian, Jessica Tyrwhitt, Sasko Kedev, Gilles Montalescot, Jan H. Cornel, Goran Stanković, Raúl Moreno, Robert F. Storey, Timothy D. Henry, Shamir R. Mehta, Matthias Bossard, Petr Kala, Ravinay Bhindi, Biljana Zafirovska, P.J. Devereaux, John W. Eikelboom, John A. Cairns, Madhu K. Natarajan, Jon-David Schwalm, Sanjib Kumar Sharma, Wadea Tarhuni, David Conen, Sarah Tawadros, Shahar Lavi, Valon Asani, Dragan Topic, Warren J. Cantor, Olivier Bertrand, Ali Pourdjabbar, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHormonal Regulation and Hypertension
Canadian institutionsSouthlake Regional Health CenterSt Mary's Hospital CentreWestern UniversitySaskWaterVancouver Coastal HealthCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeHamilton Health SciencesLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsSpironolactoneMyocardial infarctionMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have been shown to reduce mortality in patients after myocardial infarction with congestive heart failure. Whether routine use of spironolactone is beneficial after myocardial infarction is uncertain. METHODS: In this multicenter trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned patients with myocardial infarction who had undergone percutaneous coronary intervention to receive either spironolactone or placebo and either colchicine or placebo. The results of the spironolactone trial are reported here. The two primary outcomes were a composite of death from cardiovascular causes or new or worsening heart failure, evaluated as the total number of events; and a composite of the first occurrence of myocardial infarction, stroke, new or worsening heart failure, or death from cardiovascular causes. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: We enrolled 7062 patients at 104 centers in 14 countries; 3537 patients were assigned to receive spironolactone and 3525 to receive placebo. At the time of our analyses, the vital status was unknown for 45 patients (0.6%). For the first primary outcome, there were 183 events (1.7 per 100 patient-years) in the spironolactone group as compared with 220 events (2.1 per 100 patient-years) in the placebo group over a median follow-up period of 3 years (hazard ratio adjusted for competing risk of death from noncardiovascular causes, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.21; P = 0.51). With respect to the second primary outcome, an event occurred in 280 of 3537 patients (7.9%) in the spironolactone group and 294 of 3525 patients (8.3%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio adjusted for competing risk, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.81 to 1.13; P = 0.60). Serious adverse events were reported in 255 patients (7.2%) in the spironolactone group and 241 (6.8%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with myocardial infarction, spironolactone did not reduce the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes or new or worsening heart failure or the incidence of a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new or worsening heart failure. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03048825.).

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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.299
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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations43
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicHormonal Regulation and HypertensionFrench-language works237,207