The FAST-MI 2005-2010-2015 registries in the light of the COMPASS trial: The COMPASS criteria applied to a post-MI population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COMPASS trial assessed the impact of adding low dose rivaroxaban to aspirin in selected patients (pts). After an acute myocardial infarction (MI), when dual antiplatelet treatment is no longer needed, patients might be eligible for aspirin/rivaroxaban co-therapy. The characteristics and risks of such a population are unclear. METHODS: Data were extracted from the FAST-MI 2005, 2010 and 2015 nationwide French registries. Characteristics and long-term mortality were compared according to COMPASS eligibility and between registry and trial populations. RESULTS: Among 9954 patients alive and free of events at one year, 4402 (44%) were classified as COMPASS-Like (i.e. meeting COMPASS inclusion and without exclusion criteria), 1720 (17%) COMPASS-Excluded (i.e. meeting any exclusion criterion) and 3832 (39%) Non-COMPASS (i.e. meeting neither COMPASS inclusion nor exclusion criteria). COMPASS-Like patients were at higher risk and had higher 5-year mortality compared with Non-COMPASS patients. COMPASS-Excluded patients had the highest mortality. COMPASS enrichment criteria defined a population at increased risk of death: eligible pts. had 40% higher 5-year adjusted mortality (Hazard Ratio = 1.40 [1.15; 1.70]), while excluded pts. had 57% higher risk (Hazard Ratio = 1.57 [1.25; 1.97]). Patients meeting the COMPASS criteria one year after MI differed from those included in the randomized trial. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the population included in the French FAST-MI registries, enrichment criteria used in COMPASS defined a population representing 44% of the overall population of MI patients surviving to one year, and these patients are at high risk of 5-year mortality. They were at higher risk compared to chronic stable vascular patients enrolled in the trial. Registered with Clinicaltrials.gov under the number: NCT00673036.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".