State of the art: optimal medical therapy – competing with or complementary to revascularisation in patients with coronary artery disease?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of coronary revascularisation with PCI and CABG in patients with stable and unstable coronary artery disease (CAD) is well established and there is a general consensus among guidelines as regards the indications for coronary revascularisation. Although revascularisation has undoubtedly revolutionised the treatment of CAD, it is vital to understand the recent advances and importance of the concomitant use of evidence-based optimal medical therapy (OMT). In contemporary practice, OMT should include an antiplatelet agent (or dual antiplatelet therapy when indicated) and a lipid-lowering drug for all patients, and a beta-blocker and an ACE inhibitor (or angiotensin receptor blocker) for the vast majority of patients, along with addressing cardiac risk factors and lifestyle management. OMT is the recommended initial choice for patients with stable angina pectoris, and the indication for revascularisation would be persistence of symptoms despite OMT and/or improvement of prognosis. For patients with acute coronary syndromes or those who underwent coronary revascularisation with either PCI or CABG, long-term use of OMT improves clinical outcomes and prognosis.
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) | 0.001 | 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".