MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2763477913 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx504.3118

3118Temporal trends in PCI outcomes in the elderly: An analysis from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry

2017· article· en· W2763477913 on OpenAlexaffabout
Hussain Contractor, Je‐Kyoun Shin, W.T. Roberts, M. Fryer, L. Ding, C H Ng, Imad Nadra, Anthony Della Siega, Simon D. Robinson

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPeripheral Artery Disease Management
Canadian institutionsRoyal Jubilee HospitalProvincial Health Services Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineConventional PCIEmergency medicineGerontologyInternal medicineMedical emergencyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Demographics are shifting, with an increasing prevalence of elderly individuals (>80yrs) whom by 2050 will compromise 20% of the global population and will for the first time in human history exceed the number of children. Many of these individuals will have coronary disease placing increased demands on already strained healthcare systems. Despite this, there are limited data on the treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in the elderly, who are under-represented in clinical trials and who are much less likely to receive guideline based medical therapy or invasive management. Here, we examine the outcomes in elderly individuals treated with PCI between 2000–2015. Methods: Prospectively gathered data from the British Columbia Cardiac Registry was analysed for longitudinal trends in PCI use, changes in the demographic characteristics of patients and their procedural and 5 year outcomes. A linear regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with particularly high risk presentations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicPeripheral Artery Disease ManagementFrench-language works237,207