MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2763652293 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx504.2865

2865In-hospital switch of P2Y12 drugs in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of 14 observational and randomized studies including 10961 patients

2017· article· en· W2763652293 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo Bianco, Enrico Cerrato, Akshay Bagai, Livio De Luca, Simone Biscaglia, F. D’Ascenzo, Alessia Luciano, P. Destefanis, Francesco Tomassini, Alessandra Chinaglia, Shaun G. Goodman, R Pozzi, Gianluca Campo, F Varbella

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersBrigham and Women's Hospital
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeObservational studyRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisP2Y12Internal medicineIntensive care medicineEmergency medicinePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Despite recently data published from clinical registries, efficacy and safety of switching among P2Y12 inhibitors (P2Y12i clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) remain unclear. Thus, Purpose: We sought to assess the clinical outcomes of switching among P2Y12i versus maintaining the same regimen performing a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of available data. Methods: MEDLINE/PubMed/SCOPUS/Cochrane were systematically screened for studies regarding P2Y12i management and switching in clinical practice reporting a follow-up within 30 days. Comparisons between patients undergoing or not switching were performed reporting major cardiac events (MACE), any and major bleeding. Results: 10961 patients from 14 studies were included in the final analysis. Unstable Angina/NonST-elevation myocardial infarction [63.0%, InterQuartile Range (IQR) 42.1–72.1)] was the most common clinical presentation followed by ST-elevation myocardial infarction [37.0%, IQR 26.9–54.0)]. Total number of switch was 2851 (26%). Overall occurrence of MACE, any and major bleeding was 3.2%, 4.9% and 0.7%, respectively in the no-switching group vs. 2.2%, 3.5% and 0.5%, respectively in the switching group. There were no significant difference in MACE (OR 0.89 [95% CI 0.59–1.35]), however risk of any bleeding (OR 1.89 [95% CI 1.37–2.61) as well as major bleeding (OR 1.90 [95% CI 1.24–2.90) was higher among switched patients.

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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.043
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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 venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicHeart Failure Treatment and Management→French-language works237,207→