Aspirin, Warfarin, or the Combination for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Events in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Prior Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with a non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome and prior CABG are at high risk of a recurrent ischemic event despite aspirin therapy. This trial investigated the potential benefit of secondary prevention with warfarin. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a double-blind randomized trial, 135 patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, with prior CABG, and who were poor candidates for a revascularization procedure received therapy with aspirin and placebo+warfarin, warfarin and placebo+aspirin, or aspirin and warfarin for 12 months. Warfarin was titrated to an international normalized ratio of 2.0 to 2.5. The primary end point (death or myocardial infarction or unstable angina requiring hospitalization 1 year after randomization) occurred in 14.6% of the patients in the warfarin-alone group, in 11.5% of patients in the aspirin-alone group, and in 11.3% of patients randomized to the combination therapy (P=0.76). Subgroup analyses by risk features provided no indications that warfarin alone or in combination with aspirin could be of benefit over aspirin alone. Bleeding was more frequent in the 2 groups of patients administered warfarin. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-intensity oral anticoagulation alone or combined with low-dose aspirin does not appear to be superior to low-dose aspirin in the prevention of recurrent ischemic events in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes and previous CABG.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".