MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027243097 · doi:10.4021/cr251w

Is There Still a Role for Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Antagonists in Acute Coronary Syndromes?

2013· review· en· W2027243097 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Loredana Iannetta

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The role played by glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors has continuously evolved from the initial introduction in mid 90 s until the most recent guidelines for treating acute coronary syndromes, and competed with a wider use of ADP inhibitors and novel anticoagulant drugs, to the extent that they stepped down from class I to class II recommendation in the routine setting of acute coronary syndromes. As a consequence, GP IIb/IIIa use was greatly narrowed. The purpose of this review is to define the roles that GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors may still have in acute ischemic settings by explaining why in high risk patients they might be preferable and/or whether they might be added to ADP inhibitors also emphasizing the underlying mechanistic actions. It is concluded that there might be a more extensive use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes, strictly based on the definition for a high risk procedure: complexity, angiographic characteristics and patient's risk profile, regardless whether STEMI or NSTEMI. The positive elements one should appreciate in GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors are: efficacy, rapid onset and reversibility of action, absence of pharmacogenomic variability, pharmacoeconomic considerations and the possibility of intracoronary administration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.294 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207