trailNon-statin LDL-lowering therapies reduce cardiovascular events proportionally to the LDL reduction achieved
Randomized trials show lowering LDL cholesterol reduces cardiovascular events proportionally to the reduction achieved
PCSK9 inhibitors reduce cardiovascular events in statin-treated patients
Outcome trials track LDL reduction across non-statin agents· for
Adding ezetimibe to statin therapy reduces cardiovascular events
Ezetimibe added to statin therapy further lowers LDL cholesterol
Statin randomized trials reduce major vascular events by about a fifth per 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol
atomic
Some LDL-lowering interventions failed to deliver proportional benefit· against
Some interventions that lower LDL cholesterol failed to reduce cardiovascular events
CETP inhibitors substantially lowered LDL cholesterol but failed to reduce cardiovascular events
Torcetrapib lowered LDL cholesterol but increased cardiovascular events and mortality
Niacin added to statin therapy failed to reduce cardiovascular events
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Non-statin LDL-lowering therapies reduce cardiovascular events proportionally to the LDL reduction achieved
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.85Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
2depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment — the Steward prioritises higher-importance claims, so this one is likely still queued.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. — detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.