Abstract 2812: Predictors of Reinfarction Following PCI or Medical Management in Patients With Persistent Total Occlusion After Myocardial Infarction: Results from the Occluded Artery Trial (OAT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : The Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) randomized 2201 patients (up to 28 days post MI) with an occluded infarct-related artery to either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or medical treatment alone (MED). There was no difference in five-year life table event rates for the primary end point of death, reinfarction (ReMI) or heart failure. However in patients randomized to PCI there was a trend for an increase in adjudicated ReMI: 7.0% vs. 5.1%, HR 1.35 (95% CI: 0.92–1.99, p=0.12) and investigator-reported ReMI: 10.9% PCI vs 7.9% MED, HR 1.36, (95% CI: 0.98 –1.86, p=0.05). Aim : To determine independent predictors of ReMI. Methods : ReMIs were adjudicated and required two of the following: ischemic symptoms ≥30 min, ECG changes and marker elevation [creatinine kinase elevation 2x upper limit of normal (ULN), CKMB >ULN or troponin 2x ULN; after PCI, CK or CK-MB 3x ULN and after surgery, CK or CK-MB 5x ULN]. Cox multivariable regression models were developed including baseline demographics, angiographic data, and discharge medications. P<0.01 was considered significant for this secondary analysis. Results: Conclusions : In the OAT trial predictors of adjudicated ReMI were prior MI (before qualifying MI) and diabetes. The predictors were similar for both treatment groups and no single angiographic factor or effect of medication was identified. Adjudicated ReMI
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".