MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2210446786

Abstract 13208: Time-Dependent Interactions of Prasugrel vs Clopidogrel on the Long-Term Risks of Stroke after Acute Coronary Syndromes: Results from the TRILOGY ACS Trial

2014· article· en· W2210446786 on OpenAlexaff
Chee Tang Chin, Benjamin Neely, E. Magnus Ohman, Paul W. Armstrong, Harvey D. White, Dorairaj Prabhakaran, Keith A.A. Fox, Kenneth J. Winters, Matthew T. Roe

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePrasugrelClopidogrelStroke (engine)CardiologyInternal medicineAtrial fibrillationPopulationProportional hazards modelMyocardial infarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The role of more intense, sustained platelet inhibition in preventing post-ACS stroke is unclear. We previously observed a signal for a reduced risk of stroke in the TRILOGY ACS trial after 12 months of treatment with prasugrel vs clopidogrel in medically managed ACS patients. Methods: We examined the TRILOGY efficacy population (7243 ACS patients <75 y), analyzing differences in baseline characteristics between patients with/without a stroke event through 30 months with a Cox proportional hazards model. Patients with prior stroke and/or need for chronic anticoagulation were excluded. We also assessed the impact of prasugrel vs clopidogrel on risk of all stroke events and ischemic stroke over time with an extended Cox proportional hazards model. Results: There were few stroke events (n=77; ischemic stroke=62; hemorrhagic stroke=15) through 30 months. Patients with stroke were older, had more comorbidities including atrial fibrillation, and had a higher GRACE long-term mortality risk score vs...

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases→French-language works237,207→