Effects of Baseline Platelet Reactivity on Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Flow and Ischemic Time in Fibrinolysis-treated ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) flow in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) is a prognostic predictor that is directly influenced by duration of culprit artery occlusion; ischemic time.It is unknown whether platelet reactivity measured by P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) is affected by ischemic time or predictive of TIMI flow.Our objectives were to examine the effect of baseline PRU on TIMI flow and on ischemic time.Methods: Between May 2014 and August 2016, the study included 144 patients between four sites undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) within 24 hours of tenecteplase, aspirin and clopidogrel for STEMI.The VerifyNow ® Assay measured baseline PRU prior to angiography.Ischemic time was defined as the duration between index symptom onset and tenecteplase administration.Kruskal-Wallis H test was conducted because the assumption of normality was violated to test differences in baseline PRU based on TIMI flow and based on time intervals prior to PCI.Results: Median ischemic time was 172 minutes (IQR 115-285).Baseline PRU did not differ based on TIMI flow grade {χ 2 (3)=3.00,p=0.39}.Baseline PRU was not affected based on ischemic time {χ 2 (3)=1.50,p=0.68)}.Conclusion: Platelet reactivity measured by PRU is not associated with TIMI flow or ischemic time.Future research is warranted to examine the association between baseline PRU and prognosis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".