Quantitative Results of Baseline Angiography and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the COURAGE Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: COURAGE compared outcomes in stable coronary patients randomized to optimal medical therapy plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus optimal medical therapy alone. METHODS AND RESULTS: Angiographic data were analyzed by treatment arm, health care system (Veterans Administration, US non-Veterans Administration, Canada), and gender. Veterans Administration patients had higher prevalence of coronary artery bypass graft surgery and left ventricular ejection fraction < or =50%. Men had worse diameter stenosis of the most severe lesion, higher prevalence of prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and more 3-vessel disease that included a proximal left anterior descending lesion (P<0.0001 for all comparisons versus women). Failure to cross rate (3%) and visual angiographic success of stent procedures (97%) were similar to contemporary practice in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. Quantitative angiographic PCI success was 93% (residual lesion <50% in-segment) and 82% (<20% in-stent), with only minor nonsignificant differences among health care systems and genders. Event rates were higher in patients with higher jeopardy scores and more severe vessel disease, but rates were similar irrespective of treatment strategy. Within the PCI plus optimal medical therapy arm, complete revascularization was associated with a trend toward lower rate of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. Complete revascularization was similar between genders and among health care systems. CONCLUSIONS: PCI success and completeness of revascularization did not differ significantly by health care system or gender and were similar to contemporary practice. Angiographic burden of disease affected overall event rates but not response to an initial strategy of PCI plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".