MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889277087 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehy566.5261

5261Linear ongoing risk of major cardiovascular events in a global prospective registry of high-risk patients with stable coronary disease: insights from the TIGRIS study

2018· article· en· W2889277087 on OpenAlexafffund
David Brieger, Stuart Pocock, Shaun G. Goodman, Dirk Westermann, Stefan Blankenberg, José Carlos Nicolau, J Y Chen, Christopher B. Granger, Richard Grieve, Satoshi Yasuda, Tabassome Simon, Mauricio G. Cohen, Katarina Hedman, John Gregson, Kirsten L. Rennie

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Disease and Adiposity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersServierDuke Clinical Research InstituteFaculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São PauloUniversity of TorontoHjerteforeningenNIHR Biomedical Research Centre, Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust/Institute of Cancer ResearchNational Institutes of HealthBoston Scientific CorporationLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineGuangdong Provincial People's HospitalAstraZenecaBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineDiseaseProspective cohort studyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCardiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The long-Term rIsk, clinical manaGement and healthcare Resource utilization of stable coronary artery dISease in post myocardial infarction patients (TIGRIS) study was designed as a global prospective registry to evaluate the clinical management, quality of life (QoL), and outcomes during 2-year (y) follow-up in high-risk patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) 1–3 y post-myocardial infarction (MI). Methods: A total of 9,176 patients 1–3 y post-MI were enrolled between June 2013 and February 2015 from 369 centres in 25 countries. All patients had ≥1 of the following risk factors: age ≥65 y, diabetes mellitus requiring medication (DM), second prior MI, multivessel CAD, chronic non-end stage renal disease (CKD). The primary outcome over 2 y was a composite of MI, unstable angina (UA) with urgent revascularisation, stroke, or death. The clinical and patient-reported predictors of adverse outcomes were determined using Poisson regression models. Results: Follow-up data were available in 9,044 patients (98.6%). Mean age was 67 y, 76% were male, 30.5% had DM, 10.2% second prior MI, 65.9% multivessel CAD, and 7.6% CKD. The primary outcome occurred in 621 patients (6.9%); with components death 295 (3.3%), MI 195 (2.2%), stroke 58 (0.7%) and UA with urgent revascularisation 103 (1.2%). There was a steady linear accumulation of all events throughout follow-up (see Figure). Statistically significant clinical predictors of the primary outcome (after adjusting for baseline risk, country and region) included: increasing age (risk ratio [RR] 1.30 per 10 y), heart rate ≥80 bpm (RR 1.45 vs <70 bpm), current smoking (RR 1.49), DM (RR 1.69), second prior MI (RR 1.78), CKD (RR 2.16), anaemia (RR 1.71), prior angina (RR 1.42), prior heart failure (RR 1.85), prior stroke (RR 1.41), peripheral vascular disease (RR 1.76), prior major bleed (RR 1.89), and lung disease (RR 1.44). Treatment predictors included lack of revascularisation at index MI (RR 1.76 vs PCI), diuretic use (RR 1.90), and not on a statin (RR 1.30) at enrollment. The main patient-reported predictor was impaired QoL (misery index ≥4 RR 2.51 vs 0, see Figure; misery index is a QoL score based on the EQ-5D ranging from 0 [no problems] to 10 [maximal problems]).

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)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicCardiovascular Disease and AdiposityFrench-language works237,207