Immediate vs. delayed stenting in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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
AIMS: To conduct a meta-analysis of studies comparing immediate versus delayed stenting in populations where primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or early invasive revascularisation was the initial mode of reperfusion. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified five non-randomised studies and one randomised trial for a total of 590 patients in studies comparing immediate to delayed stenting in populations where primary PCI or early invasive revascularisation was the initial mode of reperfusion. In non-randomised studies, delayed stenting was associated with a reduction of procedure-related angiographic events (OR=0.13, 95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.03- 0.36). No differences were observed in the rates of major bleeding (OR=0.81, 95% CrI: 0.01-13.42) and major adverse cardiac events (OR=0.40, 95% CrI: 0.09-1.91), between delayed and immediate stenting. In one randomised trial, delayed stenting was associated with a reduction in myocardial infarction during hospitalisation (39% vs. 60%; relative risk [RR]=0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.80). None of the patients assigned to delayed stenting experienced a major adverse cardiac event in the interval between the initial angiogram and the stenting. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed stent implantation is associated with better angiographic outcomes. Randomised trials are required to assess whether delayed stenting translates into better long-term cardiac outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it