MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084949838 · doi:10.1136/ebm.11.3.82

Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin, but not early use of metoprolol, improved overall outcome in acute myocardial infarction

2006· letter· en· W2084949838 on OpenAlexaff
David Massel

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence-Based Medicine · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClopidogrelMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary interventionAspirinMetoprololInternal medicinePlaceboCardiologyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

COMMIT Collaborative Group. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45 852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1607–21.COMMIT Collaborative Group. Early intravenous then oral metoprolol in 45 852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005;366:1622–32. [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q In patients hospitalised within 24 hours of suspected acute myocardial infarction (AMI), does the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin and the early use of metoprolol improve outcomes? Clinical impact ratings IM/Ambulatory care ★★★★★★★ Internal medicine ★★★★★★☆ Cardiology ★★★★★★★ Emergency medicine ★★★★★★☆ ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design randomised placebo controlled trial with 2 × 2 factorial design (Clopidogrel and Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial [COMMIT]). ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation concealed.* ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding blinded {clinicians, patients, and outcome assessors}†.* ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period until first hospital discharge or 28 days. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting 1250 hospitals in China. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients 45 852 patients (mean age 61 y, 72% men) hospitalised within 24 hours (mean 10 h) of onset of symptoms of AMI, with ST elevation (87%), left bundle branch block (6%), or ST depression (7%) and no clear indication for or against the study medications. Those with moderate heart failure were eligible. Patients scheduled for primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and those with small likelihood of benefit or high risk for adverse effects were excluded. ### ![Graphic][11]</img>Interventions clopidogrel, 75 mg once daily (n = 22 961), or placebo (n = 22 891); all patients also received aspirin, 162 mg once daily. Intravenous (IV) metoprolol, 5 mg, up to 3 doses given over 2–3 minutes and spaced 2–3 minutes apart (provided heart rate >50 beats/min and systolic blood pressure >90 mm Hg), then oral metoprolol, 50 mg every 6 hours for 2 days, followed by oral controlled release metoprolol, 200 mg once daily (n = 22 929), or placebo (n = 22 923). 54% of patients also received fibrinolytic therapy. ### ![Graphic][12]</img>Outcomes clopidogrel study: composite end point (death, reinfarction, or stroke), all cause mortality, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DLancet%26rft.stitle%253DLancet%26rft.aulast%253DChen%26rft.auinit1%253DZ.%2BM.%26rft.volume%253D366%26rft.issue%253D9497%26rft.spage%253D1622%26rft.epage%253D1632%26rft.atitle%253DEarly%2Bintravenous%2Bthen%2Boral%2Bmetoprolol%2Bin%2B45%252C852%2Bpatients%2Bwith%2Bacute%2Bmyocardial%2Binfarction%253A%2Brandomised%2Bplacebo-controlled%2Btrial.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1016%252FS0140-6736%252805%252967661-1%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F16271643%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=10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67661-1&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=16271643&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmed%2F11%2F3%2F82.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000233047100023&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif [11]: /embed/inline-graphic-7.gif [12]: /embed/inline-graphic-8.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 armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Observational
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Commentary

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence-Based MedicineSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207