Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although practice guidelines recommend coronary revascularization for patients with heart failure, the evidence to support this recommendation is weak. The objective of our study was to determine the association of coronary revascularization with survival in patients who have had heart failure. METHODS: Data were obtained from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcomes Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH), a clinical outcome-monitoring initiative that has captured data on all patients undergoing cardiac catheterization in the province of Alberta since 1995. Our study included data from patients with a history of heart failure and with documented coronary artery disease; patients with normal coronary arteries or prior coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) were excluded. We constructed survival curves and adjusted them by the corrected group prognosis method (incorporating all clinical variables in APPROACH). Propensity scores were used to account for clinical characteristics that could influence the decision to revascularize. RESULTS: A total of 2538 patients (mean age 68 yr, standard deviation [SD] 11 yr, 31% female) underwent revascularization; 1690 patients (mean age 69 [SD 11] yr, 34% female) did not. Crude 1-year mortality was 11.8% among patients who underwent revascularization, compared with 21.6% among those who did not. Adjusted survival curves diverged early and continued up to 7 years of follow-up (hazard ratio 0.50, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.57). Propensity scores showed improved survival with revascularization across all quintiles of likelihood of revascularization. INTERPRETATION: This new evidence lends support to practice guidelines, which recommend revascularization in patients with heart failure and coronary disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 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".