P5538Meta-analysis of the impact on mortality of successful revascularization of the non-infarct-related artery coronary chronic total occlusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated by PPCI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Recently several observational studies which have compared clinical outcomes of the successful staged revascularization of non-infarct-related artery chronic total occlusion (n-IRA CTO) versus those non-reperfusion, suggested that the former decreased all-cause mortality. But the EXPLORE trail evaluated the impact of CTO revascularization in n-IRA after PPCI for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) on LV systolic function and clinical outcomes and they did not find the overall benefit for CTO PCI in terms of LVEF or LVEDV and MACE rates. Purpose: The goal of this study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the impact of the successful revascularization for an n-IRA CTO on long-term mortality after primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. Methods: We conducted the meta-analysis in accordance with the general guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; version 5.0.2.We conducted Cochrane Controlled Trials Registry, PubMed, MEDLINE and EMBASE database searches for literatures. Meanwhile, collected published data and randomized controlled trials from meeting abstracts and websites to compare Successful PCI and Occluded CTO for treating n-IRA-CTO in patients with acute myocardial infarction. The quality of literatures were assessed and extracted by Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), Meta-analysis was conducted by RevMan 5.3 software.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".