MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2256740904

Abstract 17162: Early and Late Stent Thrombosis are Associated with Long-Term Cardiac Mortality: Results from Pooled PROTECT Trials

2014· article· en· W2256740904 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric A. Secemsky, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Edoardo Camenzind, William Wijns, Eugène McFadden, Laura Mauri

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineZotarolimusClinical endpointMyocardial infarctionStentSirolimusInternal medicineSurgeryCardiologyRandomized controlled trialClinical trialDrug-eluting stentPercutaneous coronary intervention
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Trials of coronary stents have indicated high mortality risks associated with stent thrombosis (ST), but there have been few adequately powered studies with prospective late follow-up. Methods: The Patient-Related OuTcomes with Endeavor versus Cypher stenting Trial (PROTECT) randomized 8709 subjects to either Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting or Cypher sirolimus-eluting stents, and the PROTECT Continued Access Trial enrolled 1018 patients treated with Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stents in the U.S. and Canada. Subjects in each were consented for 5 years of follow-up and completed 4 and 3 year follow-up to date respectively. The primary endpoint was ARC definite and probable ST. All potential ST events were stratified by time from index procedure: early (≤30 days), late (>30 and ≤360 days) and very late (>360 days). Baseline characteristics and rates of death and myocardial infarction (MI) were analyzed according to time of ST. Results: The median follow up was 4.1 years. There were 184 ST events: 6...

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.011
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 topicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→