Percutaneous coronary intervention in the elderly.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical risks and procedural outcomes for elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHOD: A retrospective case-load analysis was performed of all patients over the age of 80 years, undergoing PCI, over a two-year period, in a tertiary referral hospital. Patient demographics, procedural details and in-hospital complications were obtained by reviewing patient notes. Twelve-month outcomes were obtained from telephone follow-up to the general practitioners and all surviving patients. RESULTS: There were 55 procedures. Procedural risk was high, with a median TIMI risk score of four (IQR 3-6) and a median additive EuroSCORE of nine (IQR 8-10). There was a 95% angiographic success rate. There were no in-hospital complications. Median Canadian Cardiovascular Society angina class fell from four (IQR 3-4) to one (IQR 0-1). At one year there were twelve deaths (10 cardiovascular), eight of these occurred in patients who had incomplete revascularisation. CONCLUSION: PCI can be performed in an elderly, high-risk population with a low in-hospital mortality and marked symptomatic benefit. However, there is a significant 1-year mortality, particularly in patients who are only suitable for partial revascularisation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".