Acute treatment of myocardial infarction in Canada 1999-2002.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Therapy for management of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) varies according to patient, prescriber and geographical characteristics. OBJECTIVES: To describe the in-hospital use of reperfusion therapy for ST elevation MI (STEMI) and discharge use of acetylsalicylic acid, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and statins in patients presenting with either STEMI or non-STEMI in Canada from 1999 to 2002. METHODS: Four Canadian registries (FASTRAK II, Canadian Acute Coronary Syndromes, Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment and Improving Cardiovascular Outcomes in Nova Scotia) were used to identify patients with AMI in Canada and to measure in-hospital reperfusion and medication use. Use rates were compared by age, sex, time period and geographical area, according to available data. RESULTS: Use rates for reperfusion in STEMI patients ranged from 60% to 70%, primarily representing fibrinolytic therapy. A delay in presentation to hospital after symptom onset represented an impediment to timely therapy, which was particularly pronounced for women and elderly patients. Overall, less than 50% of patients met the door-to-needle target of less than 30 min. Medication use rates at discharge increased from 1999/2000 to 2000/2001 across the different data sources: acetylsalicylic acid, 83% to 88%; beta-blockers, 74% to 89%; ACEIs, 54% to 67%; statins, 41% to 53%; and calcium antagonists, 21% to 32%. CONCLUSIONS: Canadian and provincial rates of use of evidence-based medications for the treatment of AMI have increased over time, although there remains room for improvement. A single, comprehensive data source would supply better insights into the management of AMI in Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".