Abstract 3511: Quality of Life in COURAGE Trial Patients with Diabetes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The COURAGE trial randomized 2,287 patients to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) or OMT alone. We hypothesized that patients with diabetes would have lower quality of life (QOL) at baseline and benefit less from PCI than patients without diabetes. Methods: Angina frequency and QOL were assessed with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at baseline, 1, 2, and 3 years. Diabetes and treatment group differences were assessed by analysis of variance and linear mixed effects models. Results: (See Table .) Diabetes status could be determined in 2,234 patients. Of these, 766 (34%) had diabetes. There were no significant baseline differences in SAQ scores for angina frequency and QOL for patients with and without diabetes. All patients experienced significant (p<0.001) improvement in these SAQ scores from baseline through 3 years post-randomization in both treatment arms, however patients without diabetes had significantly greater improvement (p<0.001 for both scores). The addition of PCI to OMT produced a small but statistically significant advantage for patients without diabetes that persisted for 2 years for angina frequency and 1 year for QOL; a similar advantage for PCI was observed for patients with diabetes, but this was not statistically significant, due in part to the smaller sample size. Comparison of SAQ Scores by Diabetes Status and Treatment Conclusions: COURAGE patients with and without diabetes had similar baseline angina frequency and QOL, and experienced marked improvement in these parameters in both treatment groups. Diabetic patients had less improvement in these health status scores than non-diabetic patients. The addition of PCI to OMT produced a small incremental benefit compared with OMT alone that lasted for 1–2 years, after which there were no between-group differences for patients with or without diabetes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".