Antiplaquettaires pour le syndrome coronarien aigu, lequel choisir?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ment au regime posologique habituel (300 mg, puis 75 mg par jour). Methot et coll. resument et critiquent d’ailleurs cet article dans le present numero. L’etude conclut que cette strategie ne presente aucun avantage quant au critere d’evaluation primaire. Il est toujours interessant d’observer l’effet theorique de la double dose de clopidogrel dans une analyse per protocol, c’est-a-dire seulement sur les patients a qui un tuteur coronarien a ete implante. Les doubles doses de clopidogrel ont ete associees a de bons resultats lors de thromboses de tuteurs (1,6 % contre 2,3 %, NNT = 143), a une reduction des infarctus (2 % contre 2,6 %, NNT = 167) ainsi qu’a une augmentation du risque de saignement majeur (1,6 contre 1,1 %, NNT = 200). Les avantages cliniques minimes semblent bien plus theoriques que reels, particulierement dans le contexte ou d’autres interventions en cardiologie demontrent de bons resultats sur la mortalite lors d’analyses portant sur l’intention de traiter. Quelques centres hospitaliers considerent qu’il est approprie d’allouer davantage de ressources afin de permettre a leurs cliniciens d’adopter ce regime double pour les patients qui sont diriges en angioplastie. Toutefois, le regime standard du clopidogrel demeure largement utilise. Voyons maintenant quelles sont les autres strategies disponibles.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".