ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients are more likely to achieve lipid-lowering treatment goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statin nonadherence or discontinuation is associated with increased cardiovascular events. Many factors related to the physicians or the patients are influential in this. We aimed to compare the compliance with statin therapy between the patients who first presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and unstable angina pectoris (UA) based on the target achievement according to the current dyslipidemia guidelines.We retrospectively acquired all the information about demographic characteristics, in-hospital revascularization procedures, prescribed treatments, and index and up to 6-month follow-up laboratory results of the first acute coronary syndrome patients. Acute coronary syndrome patients were divided into 3 groups as STEMI, NSTEMI, and UA.The STEMI group consisted of 260 patients, NSTEMI group consisted of 560 patients, and UA group consisted of 206 patients. Seventy-six percent of patients underwent percutaneous coronary interventions, 18.3% were managed medically, and 5.7% were referred for coronary artery bypass grafting. There was a significant decrease in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C) values with the statin treatment at the follow-up in all 3 groups (for all P < .001). In the STEMI group, the percentage of those achieving the target LDL-C level was significantly higher than those who did not achieve the target according to both The American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) and European Society of Cardiology dyslipidemia guidelines. The LDL-C target achievement rates were also higher in the STEMI group than in the NSTEMI and UA groups.Our study concluded that statin treatment goals were more attained in STEMI patients than NSTEMI and UA. All physicians should encourage lifelong intensive statin treatment in UA and NSTEMI patients such as STEMI 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".