Inferior quality of care and outcomes for acute coronary syndrome with left anterior hemiblock
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zhang et al report in Heart ,1 in their comparison of quality of care and outcomes of patients with left anterior hemiblock (LAHB) hospitalised with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), lower rates of coronary revascularisation and reperfusion and higher rates of in-hospital and 6-month unadjusted mortality. They suggest that the more conservative approach to ACS care is due to the coexistence of comorbidities in patients with LAHB. The notion of an ACS risk-treatment paradox is, however, not new. Fox and colleagues used data from the international GRACE registry to demonstrate inequalities in care and outcomes for patients hospitalised with ACS across different healthcare systems—higher-risk patients were less likely to receive evidence-based therapies.2 What is novel in the study from Zhang and colleagues are the findings that (1) LAHB in the context of ACS was associated with higher-risk features of mortality; (2) despite this, patients with LAHB were less likely to receive guideline recommended care; and (3) after consideration of comorbidities, LAHB was not an independent predictor of early or late mortality among the 692 patients with LAHB from the cohort of over 11 000 patients from the international GRACE ECG substudy and Canadian ACS registry. Unlike the first prognostic studies of LAHB in the context of ACS undertaken in the 1970s, which suggested that LAHB did not confer higher mortality rates,3 more recent research has revealed an increased risk of cardiac death associated with LAHB. On the one hand, the study by Zhang and colleagues corroborates these earlier investigations describing …
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".