Outcomes of medically managed patients with myocardial infarction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes associated with medical management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presenting to hospitals with and without onsite catheterization facilities. Methods All patients ( n=25,921) with ST-elevation myocardial infarction ( n=10,563) or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction ( n=15,358) in Alberta, Canada between April 2010–March 2016 were categorized according to availability of catheterization facilities at the hospital they presented to and their management strategy (medically managed without coronary angiography or medically managed after coronary angiography). Results: Overall, 51% presented to hospitals without catheterization facilities; and 34% were managed medically (18% without coronary angiography, and 16% after coronary angiography). Rates of medical management were higher at hospitals without versus those with catheterization facilities (43% vs. 24%, p<0.01). However, both the rate of presentation to hospitals without catheterization facilities (70% non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 24% ST-elevation myocardial infarction, p<0.01) and medical management (45% non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, 18% ST-elevation myocardial infarction, p<0.01) differed by myocardial infarction type. The lack of catheterization facilities at the presenting hospital had no association with in-hospital mortality in patients medically managed without coronary angiography, but was associated with a lower risk of mortality among patients medically managed after coronary angiography. However, the latter benefit was restricted to non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients only (adjusted hazard ratio 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.25–0.76). Conclusion: The availability of catheterization facilities at the hospital at which non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction and ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients presented influenced their likelihood of being medically managed, but was not associated with adverse short- or long-term mortality outcomes.
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 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".