Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitors in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPIs) are effective and safe as adjunctive therapy for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-June 2004), EMBASE (1980-June 2004), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-June 2004) were searched, in addition to a manual bibliographic search. DATA SYNTHESIS: Even though GPIs have an established role as adjunctive therapy in PCI, little is known about their use in patients with ESRD. We found 3 reports describing experience with abciximab in this population. Based on the limited information from registries and a retrospective chart review, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions about the utility of GPIs in ESRD. The decision to use abciximab in this population must be made on an individual case basis. CONCLUSIONS: Studies are needed to evaluate the benefit versus risk of GPI therapy in ESRD.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".