The impact of guideline compliant medical therapy on clinical outcome in patients with stable angina: findings from the Euro Heart Survey of stable angina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The European Society of Cardiology published guidelines for the management of stable angina in 1997, with the objective of promoting an evidence-based approach to the condition. This study focuses on the impact of guideline compliant medical treatment on clinical outcome in patients with stable angina. METHODS AND RESULTS: The Euro Heart Survey of Stable Angina is a multicentre prospective observational study conducted between 2002 and 2003. Patients with a clinical diagnosis of stable angina by a cardiologist were enrolled and follow-up was conducted at 1 year. The primary outcome of interest was death or myocardial infarction (MI). The increasing intensity of guideline compliant medical therapy was quantified by means of a simple treatment score based on the use of guideline advocated therapies: antiplatelets, statins, and beta-blockers. A total of 3779 patients were included in the initial survey. Increasing intensity of guideline compliant therapy at initial assessment was associated with a reduction in death and MI during follow-up in patients with angina and confirmed coronary disease (HR 0.68; 95% CI 0.49-0.95 per unit increase in treatment score). All cardiovascular events were also significantly reduced in this subgroup (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.69-0.97). The benefits of guideline compliant therapy were only observed in patients with objective evidence of coronary disease. CONCLUSION: Guideline compliant medical therapy improves clinical outcome in patients with stable angina and objective evidence of coronary disease.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".