MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096365030

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATION Statin Use and Survival Outcomes in Elderly Patients With Heart Failure

2015· article· en· W7096365030 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeart failureStroke (engine)StatinConfidence intervalCohortCohort studyRelative riskCoronary heart disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Coronary artery disease is a leading cause of heart failure. Statins are efficacious drugs for the pri-mary and secondary prevention of coronary heart dis-ease, but their value in persons with heart failure re-mains unknown. Methods:We performed a population-based retrospec-tive cohort study involving the entire province of On-tario, Canada, restricting participants to those aged 66 to 85 years who were free of cancer and who survived at least 90 days following hospitalization for newly diag-nosed heart failure. The primary study outcome was the risk of death from all causes, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke among persons newly dis-pensed statins (n=1146) relative to those who were not (n=27682). Results:Themean age of all participants was 76.5 years, and half were women. During the 7-year study period, death, acute myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 217 statin recipients (13.6 per 100 person-years) vs 12299 nonrecipients (21.8 per 100 person-years; adjusted haz-ard ratio [HR], 0.72; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.63-0.83). Most of the benefit from statins was related to a reduction in all-causemortality (adjusted HR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.57-0.78). No significant reductionwas seen for sub-

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→