Abstract 13846: The Relationship of Platelet Function Measurements with Bleeding Outcomes During Long-term Treatment with Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Medically Managed NSTE-ACS Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The relationship of low “on-treatment” platelet reactivity to longitudinal risks of major bleeding following acute coronary syndromes (ACS) has not been clearly delineated. Methods: We analyzed 2428 patients with non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTE ACS) from the TRILOGY ACS trial who were managed without revascularization and had platelet reactivity measurements (P2Y12 reaction units [PRUs]) collected in a platelet function substudy. Patients received aspirin + prasugrel (10 mg/d; 5 mg/d for those ≥75 y or <75 y and <60 kg) or clopidogrel (75 mg/d). Non-CABG severe/moderate GUSTO bleeding and non-CABG TIMI major/minor bleeding were ascertained through 30 months. Contal’s method was used to investigate whether a PRU cut point could distinguish high vs low bleeding risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the association between PRU and time to first bleed. Results: Through 30 months, there were 27 GUSTO severe/moderate bleeds and 37 TIMI major/minor bleeds, with gastrointestinal bleeding the most common. Baseline characteristics were stratified by tertiles of PRU values at 5 d, and significant differences were seen across tertiles (Table). Unadjusted bleeding rates appeared highest among those in the lowest PRU tertile but no reliable PRU cut point was found that significantly distinguished bleeding risk. Unadjusted analyses showed continuous measures of PRUs were not associated with GUSTO (HR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.96-1.04) or TIMI bleeding (HR=1.03, 95% CI: 0.99-1.06). This relationship did not change after multivariable adjustment. Conclusions: Among NSTE-ACS patients managed without revascularization and receiving dual antiplatelet therapy, PRU values were not significantly associated with long-term bleeding risk. The relatively small number of bleeding events accrued limited study power, but these results suggest that low “on-treatment” platelet reactivity does not independently predict post-ACS bleeding risk.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".