The 2010 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularisation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the European Society for Cardiology annual meeting in Stockholm at the end of August 2010, the new joint European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery (EACTS) guidelines on myocardial revascularisation were published online.1 These are a completely new set of guidelines which incorporate the 2006 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris2 and also contain important differences reflecting advances in the clinical management of ischaemic heart disease and advocating a more formal multidisciplinary approach to intervention in such patients. In contrast to previous guidelines for interventions in coronary artery disease produced independently by the cardiology and cardiac surgery communities, the new ESC/EACTS collaborative effort recognises the need for cohesive guidelines applicable to the management of the entire spectrum of coronary artery disease. While less severe disease can be adequately treated by lifestyle changes and optimal medical therapy, more severe disease may additionally require intervention by stenting or surgery. Accordingly, the writing committee, which was co-chaired by a cardiologist and a surgeon, consisted of 25 members in total and included nine non-interventional cardiologists, eight interventional cardiologists and eight cardiac surgeons. This is in marked contrast to the previous ESC guidelines task force which included a single cardiac surgeon among its 16 members.2 It should also be noted that the guidelines were produced without any commercial sponsorship from the pharmaceutical or interventional or surgical device industry, who are all powerful players in the cardiovascular arena. After several revisions, the guidelines were approved by the external reviewers from the respective societies. The ESC guidelines are based on a ‘comprehensive review of the published evidence’3 with a ‘formal meta-analysis at the beginning of the writing phase’.4 However, it has also to be acknowledged that, as with all guidelines, some …
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it