Percutaneous coronary intervention plus optimal medical therapy was not more effective than medical therapy alone in stable CAD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al . Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2007;356:1503–16. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] Q In patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), is percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) plus optimal medical therapy (OMT) more effective for preventing cardiovascular events than OMT alone? Clinical impact ratings GP/FP/Primary care ★★★★★★★ Internal medicine ★★★★★★☆ Cardiology ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][4]</img>Design: randomised controlled trial (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation [COURAGE] trial). ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Allocation: unclear allocation concealment.* ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Blinding: blinded (outcome adjudication committee).* ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Follow up period: median 4.6 years (range 2.5–7.0 y). ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Setting: 50 centres in the US and Canada. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Patients: 2287 patients (mean age 62 y, 85% men) with stable CAD (stenosis ⩾70% in ⩾1 proximal epicardial coronary artery and objective evidence of myocardial ischaemia, or ⩾1 coronary stenosis ⩾80% and classic angina without provocative testing). Exclusion criteria included persistent class IV angina, a markedly positive stress test, refractory heart failure or cardiogenic shock, ejection fraction <30%, revascularisation in ⩽6 … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DN%2BEngl%2BJ%2BMed%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1056%252FNEJMoa070829%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F17387127%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1056/NEJMoa070829&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=17387127&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F12%2F4%2F107.atom [4]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".