Angiographic Disease Progression and Residual Risk of Cardiovascular Events While on Optimal Medical Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The extent to which recurrent events in patients with stable coronary artery disease is attributable to progression of an index lesion originally ≥50% diameter stenosis (DS) but not revascularized or originally <50% DS is unknown during optimal medical therapy (OMT). METHODS AND RESULTS: In the COURAGE (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation) trial, 205 patients assigned to OMT plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and 284 patients assigned to OMT only had symptom-driven angiograms suitable for analysis. Percentages of patients in the OMT+PCI and OMT-only cohorts with index lesions originally <50% DS were 30% and 32%, respectively; 20% and 68% had index lesions originally ≥50% DS. In both groups, index lesions originally <50% or ≥50% DS represented <4% and <25% of all such lesions, respectively. The only angiographic predictor of myocardial infarction or acute coronary syndrome was the number of lesions originally ≥50% DS that had not been revascularized (odds ratio, 1.15; confidence limits, 1.01-1.31; P<0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Lesions originally <50% DS were index lesions in one third of patients referred for symptom-driven repeat angiography, but represented <4% of all such lesions. Nonrevascularized lesions originally ≥50% DS were more often index lesions in OMT-only patients, but still represented a minority (<25%) of all such lesions. These findings underscore the need for improved therapies to arrest plaque progression and reliable strategies for selecting stenoses warranting PCI.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".