MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

P4591Outcomes of stable coronary artery disease worldwide. Insights from the CLARIFY registry

2018· article· en· W2889315495 on OpenAlexaff
Emmanuel Sorbets, N Greenlow, Ian Ford, Michał Tendera, Roberto Ferrari, Jean‐Claude Tardif, Dayi Hu, Nicolas Danchin, S. А. Shalnova, Paul R. Kalra, Stefan Kääb, José Luis Zamorano, Paul Dorian, Kim Fox, Philippe Gabríel Steg

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMontreal Heart Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronary artery diseaseCardiologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The epidemiology and management of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) have substantially changed with the advent of revascularization, evidence-based secondary prevention therapies and improved survival following acute coronary syndromes (ACS). While in the last century, stable CAD largely referred to patients with angina pectoris, the spectrum of stable angina is nowadays broader, encompassing long term survivors of ACS, and patients with or without: angina, documented ischemia, history of revascularization or documented angiographic CAD. There are few data describing this broad group of patients. Purpose: To describe epidemiology, contemporary management and long term outcomes of this broad group of patients. Methods: CLARIFY is an observational longitudinal registry. Stable CAD patients from 45 countries were enrolled between 2009–2010. The inclusion criteria were any of: previous myocardial infarction (MI); angiographic evidence of coronary stenosis >50%; documented symptomatic myocardial ischemia; or prior revascularization. The main exclusion criteria were serious non-cardiovascular or other cardiovascular (CV) disease (including advanced heart failure); conditions interfering with life expectancy. Follow-up was by yearly visits up to 5 years. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated with multivariable adjusted Cox proportional hazards models.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.243 · 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicLipoproteins and Cardiovascular Health→French-language works237,207→