MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001529809 · doi:10.1097/mca.0b013e32831bb4aa

Multidecade-long trends (1986–2005) in the utilization of coronary reperfusion and revascularization treatment strategies in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction: a community-wide perspective

2008· article· en· W2001529809 on OpenAlexaff
Jared Wasser, Robert J. Goldberg, Frederick A. Spencer, Jorge Yarzebski, Joel M. Gore

Bibliographic record

VenueCoronary Artery Disease · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionRevascularizationPsychological interventionInternal medicineCoronary artery bypass surgeryPercutaneousReperfusion therapyCardiologyArteryEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of our community-wide investigation were to describe multidecade-long trends (1986-2005) in the utilization of thrombolytic therapy, percutaneous coronary interventions, and coronary artery bypass graft surgery in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). METHODS: The study sample consisted of 9422 greater Worcester (MA) residents hospitalized with confirmed AMI at all metropolitan Worcester medical centers in 11 annual periods between 1986 and 2005. RESULTS: Increases in the utilization of percutaneous coronary interventions were observed between 1986 (2.0%) and 2005 (50.7%) with the most rapid increases beginning in the late 1990s. Utilization of coronary artery bypass graft surgery during hospitalization for AMI increased moderately in the 1990s, remained stable thereafter, and declined to being performed in 3.8% of hospitalized patients in 2005. The use of thrombolytic therapy increased between 1986 and 1995 (9.3-25.2%) and decreased markedly thereafter through 2005 (<1%). Demographic and clinical characteristics of several patients were associated with the receipt of these treatment regimens. CONCLUSION: The results of this study in residents of a large Central New England community suggest an increasingly invasive approach to the management of patients hospitalized with AMI.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations17
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCoronary Artery DiseaseSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207