Bibliographic record
Abstract
P = .01)at a median follow-up of 1 year.Major bleeding complications were comparable and uncommon (2.0% in After Eighty vs 1.6% in the Italian Elderly ACS subgroup).Considering that screening failure was high in the After Eighty study (89%), whereas the current trial had randomized approximately 50% of potentially eligible individuals, the consistency of the current study data with those of the After Eighty trial suggests the benefit of an invasive strategy over a conservative one even in very elderly adults with NSTE myocardial infarction.Figure 1 shows the pooled analysis, with a highly significant estimated effect favoring the invasive approach (risk ratio (RR) = 0.64, 95% confidence interval 0.53-0.76;p for heterogeneity = .22,I 2 = 32%, tau-squared = 0.023).However, in the individual patient, decisions should also take into consideration estimated life expectancy, comorbidities, frailty, and personal preferences.3,6 These aspects had not been quantified in the above-reported trials.A recently published scientific statement from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, and American Geriatrics Society strongly recommends assessing functional and cognitive outcomes in older adults with ACS and incorporating this information in risk-stratification tools relevant to identify individuals who are most likely to derive benefit from invasive management.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.009 |
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".