MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Differential Treatment Benefit of Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibition With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Medical Therapy for Acute Coronary Syndromes

2004· article· en· W2137761420 on OpenAlexaff
Karen S. Pieper, Anastasios A. Tsiatis, Marie Davidian, Vic Hasselblad, Neal S. Kleiman, Eric Boersma, Wei-Ching Chang, Jeffrey Griffin, Paul W. Armstrong, Robert M. Califf, Robert A. Harrington

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersTakeda OncologyEli Lilly and Company
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionMedical therapyCardiologyAcute coronary syndromePlateletInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Although many believe that platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors should be used only in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, supporting data from randomized clinical trials are tenuous. The assumption that these agents are useful only in conjunction with percutaneous coronary intervention is based primarily on inappropriate subgroup analyses performed across the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor trials. METHODS AND RESULTS: We describe the problems with these analytical techniques and demonstrate that different approaches to the question can result in opposing answers. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical-practice decisions and practice guidelines should be based on overall trial results and not analyses of post-randomization subgroups.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations36
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207