2011 ACCF/AHA Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non–ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction (Updating the 2007 Guideline): Highlights for the Clinician
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The 2011 Update to the Unstable Angina/Non–ST‐Elevation Myocardial Infarction (UA/NSTEMI) Guideline is based in evolving data or expert opinion and incorporates information from late‐breaking clinical trials presented at the 2008–2009 Scientific Sessions of the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology, among others, as well as selected data through April 2010. The 5 key issues highlighted in this summary are: (1) the timing of acute interventional therapy in non–ST‐elevation myocardial infarction; (2) emphasis on the timing, duration, and application of dual and triple antiplatelet therapy; (3) specific recommendations for patients with diabetes mellitus; (4) the role and potential benefit of invasive therapy in patients with advanced renal dysfunction; and (5) issues of quality improvement for acute coronary syndromes. © 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dr. Wenger is a consultant at Emory Heart and Vascular Center, Atlanta, Georgia. The author has no other funding, financial relationships, or conflicts of interest to disclose.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it