Geographic variation in patient and hospital characteristics, management, and clinical outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with fibrinolysis. Results from InTIME-II
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: We examined the geographic variations in InTIME-II, a randomized double-blind trial comparing alteplase with lanoteplase for myocardial infarction. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compared baseline characteristics, management, and outcomes in four regions (Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America, and Latin America) and in countries with historically different management approaches (Germany vs the U.K., the U.S. vs Canada). Thirty-day mortality in Western Europe, Eastern Europe, North America and Latin America was 6.7%, 7.3%, 5.7%, 10.1%, P<0.0001. Adjusted mortality for Europe was intermediate between North America and Latin America (odds ratios (OR) [95% confidence intervals (CI)] compared to Western Europe: North America 0.84 [0.67-1.0], Eastern Europe 1.2 [1.0-1.4], and Latin America 1.8 [1.3-2.7]). Revascularization rates varied 10-fold but did not explain regional mortality differences. Germany and the U.K. had similar adjusted 1-year mortality (OR for the U.K. 1.16 [0.92-1.5]), although invasive procedures were four- to 10-fold more common in Germany. Similarly the U.S. and Canada had equal adjusted 1-year mortality (OR for Canada 0.85 [0.61-1.17]) despite three-fold higher use of invasive procedures in the U.S. CONCLUSIONS: Significant geographic variations in practice and adjusted mortality following fibrinolysis persist despite recent guidelines. These findings have important implications in the design and interpretation of international studies, identify under- and over-utilized therapies, and support further study of treatments with marked worldwide variations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".