MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2429208966

Two different invasive versus noninvasive strategies in the management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes.

2007· article· en· W2429208966 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Francisco Sampaio, Fernando Zanotta da Cruz, Pedro Mateus, Gama

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEjection fractionST elevationInternal medicineAngiographyCardiologyCardiac catheterizationCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyAcute coronary syndromeClinical endpointCoronary angiographyAnginaUnstable anginaRefractory (planetary science)Retrospective cohort studyElectrocardiographyHeart failureRandomized controlled trialMyocardial infarction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have evaluated the prognostic impact of early invasive strategies in the management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTEACS). There is, however, conflicting evidence about the advantages of such an approach. In some studies the benefits are dependent on gender or age, while time to angiography varies between studies. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of 222 patients admitted with NSTEACS between 1/1/2004 and 12/31/2004. The patients initially received intensive medical therapy and were divided into three groups according to the subsequent approach. In the early invasive strategy group (EIS; n = 62), angiography was performed in the first 48 hours; in delayed invasive strategy (DIS; n = 97), angiography was routinely performed but postponed beyond the first 48 hours; in the conservative strategy group (CS; n = 63), catheterization was performed only in cases of refractory angina or evidence of ischemia in non-invasive tests. We evaluated the occurrence of death or hospitalization due to cardiac cause during a mean follow-up of 549 days. RESULTS: The patients' mean age was 64.6 +/- 11.7 years and 66.7% were male. CS patients were older than the others (60.6 +/- 10.3 [EIS]; 63.2 +/- 11.2 [DIS]; 70.6 +/- 11.5 [CS]; p < 0.0005). The prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors was similar in the three groups. Ejection fraction (EF) at discharge was lower in the CS group (51.2% +/- 9.5; 51.3% +/- 7.4; 44.5% +/- 11.4; p < 0.0005). The primary endpoint occurred in 9.6%, 16.4% and 41.3% in the EIS, DIS and CS groups respectively. On multivariate analysis, after adjustment for age, EF and troponin I elevation, CS maintained the association with the endpoint (OR 5.17; 95% CI 1.64-16.32), while EF > 40% was inversely related to the endpoint. CONCLUSION: A conservative approach to NSTEACS was, in our population, associated with a worse prognosis. Delaying cardiac catheterization beyond the first 48 hours had no prognostic impact.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research→French-language works237,207→