MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1630001607 · doi:10.1586/14779072.2015.1064311

Bivalirudin in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: for better or worse?

2015· article· en· W1630001607 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas A. Mavrakanas, Yiannis S. Chatzizisis

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBivalirudinMedicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionCardiologyMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineHeparinST segment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bivalirudin and heparin are the major available parenteral anticoagulants for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Even though hard clinical outcomes are comparable with both drugs, bivalirudin appears to be safer (less bleeding events) at the expense of lower short-term efficacy (more acute stent thrombosis events). The selection of anticoagulation during PCI in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction should be individualized, taking into account the patient's ischemic and bleeding risk. In patients with increased bleeding risk, bivalirudin might be preferable to heparin, whereas in complex PCI with increased risk for stent thrombosis, heparin is preferable. Further clinical studies are needed to elucidate the role of these drugs in PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction in the era of radial approaches, new potent antiplatelet agents and the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.717
Threshold uncertainty score0.801

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207