One year effectiveness of BiodivYsio dexamethazone-eluting stent compared to BiodivYsio stent implantation in the treatment of single vessel coronary artery disease.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of BiodivYsio dexamethazone-eluting stent versus BiodivYsio stent on the 12-month outcomes after revascularisation of patients with single vessel coronary artery disease. METHODS: From March 2003 to February 2004, 102 patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes, angina or silent ischemia after recent ST elevation myocardial infarction (<1 month) or stable angina pectoris, and single-vessel coronary artery disease were treated solely with dexamethazone-eluting stent implantation in our institution. Patients were followed up prospectively for twelve months. We compared their outcomes to a control group with similar clinical and angiographic characteristics of 160 patients treated solely with BiodivYsio stents in the preceding study enrolment period (January 2002 to March 2003). RESULTS: Approximately 85% of the patients in both groups were treated after an acute coronary syndrome. At 12 months, the major adverse cardiac events rates (death or non-fatal myocardial infarction or target lesion revascularization) were similar in the 2 groups (10.8% in the dexamethazone-eluting and 11.3% in the BiodivYsio group, p=1.00). No difference was found in the individual rates of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularization between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that utilization of dexamethazone-eluting stents has no effect in reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiac events after 12 months, as compared with BiodivYsio stent implantation in the treatment of single vessel coronary artery 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".