Results of the BRAT study--a pilot study investigating the possible significance of ASA nonresponsiveness on the benefits and risks of ASA on thrombosis in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several studies suggest that acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) is less effective in preventing thrombotic events in ASA nonresponder patients. If so, the thrombotic event rate in ASA nonresponders should be higher than in ASA responders. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a prospective, multicentre observational pilot study to determine the thrombotic event rates in ASA responders and nonresponders. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients undergoing nonurgent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) who were prescribed 325 mg ASA/day were recruited. Patients were classified as an ASA responder or nonresponder based on the ASA effect (or lack thereof) on their bleeding times. All thrombotic events that occurred in the two years following CABG were recorded. These data were stored in a blinded fashion until the last patient follow-up, and then adjudicated by a validation committee. RESULTS: A total of 289 patients recruited at three sites completed the two-year follow-up. Of these patients, 45.3% were classified as ASA responders and 54.7% were classified as ASA nonresponders. Of ASA responders, 6.9% had thrombotic events compared with 9.5% of the ASA nonresponders, but this difference was not significant (P=0.526). CONCLUSIONS: While ASA responder or nonresponder status did not appear to affect the thrombotic event rate in patients undergoing nonurgent CABG, the possibility that ASA responder or nonresponder status affects the thrombotic event rate in more acutely ill CABG patients cannot be excluded.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".