MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 091: The Association of Invasive Treatment on Health Status Outcomes in Patients with Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Pre-infarct Angina

2017· article· en· W2750226664 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hani Alturkmani, Mohammed Qintar, Krishna Patel, Philip G. Jones, John A. Spertus

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionAnginaInternal medicineRevascularizationCardiologyCanadian Cardiovascular SocietyPropensity score matchingUnstable anginaInfarctionProspective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Pre-infarct angina (PIA) in patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is associated with better outcomes. However, the association of invasive strategy, as compared with ischemia-guided strategy, on health status outcomes for patients with PIA is not well studied. Methods: TRIUMPH and PREMIER are prospective myocardial infarction registries that collected the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at baseline, 1, 6 and 12 months. PIA was defined as a score of <100 on the SAQ Angina Frequency score at the time of patients’ acute myocardial infarction admission. Invasive strategy was defined as undergoing coronary angiography within 72 hours of admission without a preceding stress test. Propensity-adjusted mixed effect multivariable models were used to compare follow-up health status in patients with and without PIA based on treatment strategy. Results: Among 3,544 patients with NSTEMI, 1,839 (52%) had PIA, of whom 1,230 (67%) had an invasive strategy of whom 75% underwent revascularization. While patients who underwent invasive strategy had better health status at baseline than those who underwent ischemia-guided strategy, after propensity adjustment, patients’ comorbidities and characteristics were well balanced (all standardized differences <10%). An invasive strategy was associated with an improvement in SAQ angina frequency and SAQ summary score at 1 month only among patients with PIA (mean difference of 4 and 4.4 points, respectively, p <0.005), but this difference was not sustained at 6 or 12 months (Figure). However, among patients with no PIA, there was no significant difference in health status among patients who underwent an invasive or conservative strategy at all time points (mean difference at 1 month of 0.4 and 0.5 points on SAQ angina frequency and summary score, respectively, p >0.5 ). Conclusion: An invasive strategy for NSTEMI was associated with significantly better 30-day health status among patients with PIA, but not in those without. No health status benefits of an invasive strategy were observed at 6 or 12 months, regardless of PIA status.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207