MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optical Coherence Tomography–Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction

2016· article· en· W2336973945 on OpenAlexaff
Tej Sheth, Olli A. Kajander, Shahar Lavi, Ravinay Bhindi, Warren J. Cantor, Asim N. Cheema, Goran Stanković, Kari Niemelä, Madhu K. Natarajan, Olga Shestakovska, Rachel Tittarelli, Brandi Meeks, Sanjit S. Jolly

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research InstituteSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionConventional PCIMyocardial infarctionInterquartile rangeStentHazard ratioCardiologyInternal medicineRevascularizationAngiographyRadiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction are at increased risk for adverse events. It is unclear if image guidance by optical coherence tomography (OCT) can improve outcomes in these patients. We compared OCT-guided versus angiography-guided primary PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction among patients in the Thrombectomy Versus PCI Alone (TOTAL) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 10 732 patients enrolled in the TOTAL trial, OCT was used for PCI guidance as a part of a prospective substudy in 214 patients. Using 2:1 propensity matching, we identified 428 patients in the trial who had PCI performed with angiography guidance alone. The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and target-vessel revascularization at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included final in-stent angiographic minimum lumen diameter, procedure time, and contrast dose. The final in-stent angiographic minimum lumen diameter was 2.99±0.48 mm in the OCT-guided group versus 2.79±0.47 mm in the angiography-guided group (P<0.0001). OCT- and angiography-guided PCI had a median (interquartile range) procedure time of 58 (47, 71) minute versus 38 (28, 52) minute (P<0.0001) and total contrast dose of 239.7±81.1 mL versus 193.3±78.6 mL (P<0.0001). The primary outcome was observed in 7.5% of the OCT-guided group versus 9.8% of the angiography-guided group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-1.34; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: OCT-guided primary PCI for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction was associated with a larger final in-stent minimum lumen diameter. There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes at 1 year; however, the study was underpowered to detect a treatment effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01149044.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations45
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207