P5557Long term follow-up of the trial of routine angioplasty and stenting after fibrinolysis to enhance reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction (transfer AMI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The TRANSFER-AMI study demonstrated favourable results of routine early PCI compared to standard therapy at 30 days; the longer term outcomes following an early invasive strategy in fibrinolytic-treated ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients are uncertain. Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether the beneficial effects of an early invasive strategy persist during long term (>5 year) follow-up. Methods: We linked patients randomized to the TRANSFER-AMI from Ontario using the administrative datasets housed at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences (ICES) in order to assess long term follow-up status, including repeat procedures, hospitalizations, and major cardiovascular events (MACE). Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox regression analysis were used to evaluate the relationship between exposure and long term adverse outcomes. As a sensitivity analysis, inverse probability treatment weights (IPTW) were computed, with propensity scores to control for baseline differences between the exposure groups. Results: Of 952 patients from Ontario in TRANSFER-AMI, 881 patients had long term follow up and were included in our study. After a mean follow-up of 7.8 years and over 6,795 patient-years, there were no significant differences in death, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina, stroke, transient ischemic attack or heart failure admissions (HR 0.91 [95% CI 0.73–1.13]; p=0.41) between those randomized to an early invasive vs. standard treatment strategy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".