Review: Sirolimus-eluting stents do not differ from bare-metal stents for long-term survival in CAD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
TherapeuticsJuly 1, 2007Review: Sirolimus-eluting stents do not differ from bare-metal stents for long-term survival in CADDavid Massel, MD, Kumar Sridhar, MDDavid Massel, MDLondon Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada (D.M., K.S.)Search for more papers by this author, Kumar Sridhar, MDLondon Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada (D.M., K.S.)Search for more papers by this authorAuthor, Article, and Disclosure Informationhttps://doi.org/10.7326/ACPJC-2007-147-1-014 SectionsAboutFull TextPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail Source CitationKastrati A, Mehilli J, Pache J, et al. Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1030-9. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17296823Clinical Impact RatingsCardiology: References1 Brophy JM, Belisle P, Joseph L. Evidence for use of coronary stents. A hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:777-86. [PMID: 12755549] Google Scholar2 Sackett DL, Gent M. Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 1979;301:1410-2. [PMID: 514321] Google Scholar3 Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:1503-16. [PMID: 17387127] Google Scholar4 Cutlip DE, Chhabra AG, Baim DS, et al. Beyond restenosis: five-year clinical outcomes from second-generation coronary stent trials. Circulation. 2004;110:1226-30. [PMID: 15337693] Google Scholar Author, Article, and Disclosure InformationAffiliations: London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada (D.M., K.S.) PreviousarticleNextarticle Advertisement FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsSee AlsoReview: Drug-eluting stents are more effective than bare-metal stents for reducing acute MI at 6 to 12 months after implantation David Massel and Kumar Sridhar July 1, 2007Volume 147, Issue 1Page: 14KeywordsAngioplastyClinical trialsCoronary arteriesCoronary stentingDrugsHealth care quality assessmentHeartHemorrhageInformation storage and retrievalLesionsMyocardial infarctionNecrosisPercutaneous coronary interventionPopulation statisticsRevascularizationStable coronary artery diseaseStent implantationSurgeryThrombosis ePublished: 9 March 2020 Issue Published: July 1, 2007 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2007 by American College of Physicians. All Rights Reserved.PDF downloadLoading ...
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 | 0.006 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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".