Vascular access and antiplatelet therapies: does one influence the other?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This editorial refers to ‘The effect of cangrelor and access site on ischaemic and bleeding events: insights from CHAMPION PHOENIX’†, by J.A. Gutierrez et al., on page 1122. In this issue of the journal, Gutierrez and colleagues present the radial vs. femoral subgroup analysis of the Cangrelor versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of Platelet Inhibition (CHAMPION) PHOENIX trial, a randomized trial of the intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor, cangrelor during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).1 Bleeding during PCI has been shown to be associated with increased risk of mortality in multiple studies.2,3 Pharmacological methods to reduce bleeding have been associated with reductions in mortality in several randomized trials.4,5 Additionally, the recent MATRIX (Minimizing Adverse Haemorrhagic Events by TRansradial Access Site and Systemic Implementation of angioX) trial and an updated meta-analysis demonstrated that radial compared with femoral access not only reduced bleeding but was associated with reduced mortality.6 Radial access use is growing worldwide, and now in many countries accounts for the majority of PCI procedures. The rate of radial access in the USA has been lower than that in other countries but still has grown rapidly from 1.2% in 2007 to 16.1% in 2012.7
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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.009 |
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".