Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of: Zuckerman IH, Yin X, Rattinger GB et al. Effect of exposure to evidence-based pharmacotherapy on outcomes after acute myocardial infarction in older adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 60(10), 1854–1861 (2012).The number of myocardial infarctions (MIs) in population remains high and this event is a significant predictor of mortality. Information in literature points to a reduction in mortality, reinfarction and sudden death in first year, especially in patients with high risk, if β-blockers (BBs) are used after MI. In a perspective study, Zuckerman et al. have determined outcome following pharmacotherapy after acute MI in older adults. It is apparent that a number of matters require consideration in evaluation of the effectiveness of BBs. It seems that not all patients benefit equally from treatment with BBs but such an intervention reduces mortality. It is also important to recognize that the beneficial effects of BBs should not be considered in isolation since the biological system is too complex to manipulate with the use of a single class of drugs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".