MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904201123 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0207194

Usefulness of baseline statin therapy in non-obstructive coronary artery disease by coronary computed tomographic angiography: From the CONFIRM (COronary CT Angiography EvaluatioN For Clinical Outcomes: An InteRnational Multicenter) study

2018· article· en· W2904201123 on OpenAlexaff
Yun‐Kyeong Cho, Chang‐Wook Nam, Bon‐Kwon Koo, Joshua Schulman‐Marcus, Bríain Ó. Hartaigh, Heidi Gransar, Yao Lu, Stephan Achenbach, Mouaz H. Al‐Mallah, Daniele Andreini, Jeroen J. Bax, Matthew J. Budoff, Filippo Cademartiri, Tracy Q. Callister, Hyuk‐Jae Chang, Kavitha M. Chinnaiyan, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Ricardo C. Cury, Augustin DeLago, Gudrun Feuchtner, Martin Hadamitzky, Jörg Hausleiter, Philipp A. Kaufmann, Yong‐Jin Kim, Jonathon Leipsic, Erica Maffei, Hugo Marques, Gianluca Pontone, Gilbert Raff, Ronen Rubinshtein, Leslee J. Shaw, Todd C. Villines, Daniel S. Berman, Erica C. Jones, Jessica M. Peña, Fay Y. Lin, James K. Min

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Institutes of HealthAstellas PharmaMinistry of Science, ICT and Future PlanningNational Research FoundationServierPfizerNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Research Foundation of KoreaAmerican Heart Association
KeywordsMedicineMaceInternal medicineCardiologyMyocardial infarctionCoronary artery diseaseStatinHazard ratioUnstable anginaAnginaCoronary Calcium ScoreCoronary artery calciumConfidence intervalPercutaneous coronary intervention

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The extent to which the presence and extent of subclinical atherosclerosis by coronary computed tomography angiography influences a potential mortality benefit of statin is unknown. We evaluated the relationship between statin therapy, mortality, and subclinical atherosclerosis. METHODS: In the CONFIRM study, patients with normal or non-obstructive plaque (<50% diameter stenosis) for whom data on baseline statin use was available were included. Coronary artery calcium (CAC) was quantified using the Agatston score. The extent of non-obstructive coronary atherosclerosis was quantified using the segment involvement score (SIS). 8,016 patients were followed for a median of 2.5 years with analysis of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) including all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, unstable angina, target vessel revascularization, and coronary artery disease-related hospitalization. RESULTS: 1.2% of patients experienced all-cause mortality. Patients not on baseline statin therapy had a stepwise increased risk of all-cause mortality by CAC (relative to CAC = 0; CAC 1-99: hazard ratio [HR] 1.65, CAC 100-299: HR 2.19, and CAC≥300: HR 2.98) or SIS (relative to SIS = 0; SIS 1: HR 1.62, SIS 2-3: 2.48 and SIS≥4: 2.95). Conversely, in patients on baseline statin therapy, there was no significant increase in mortality risk with increasing CAC (p value for interaction = 0.049) or SIS (p value for interaction = 0.007). The incidence of MACE was 2.1%. Similar to the all-cause mortality, the risk of MACE was increased with CAC or SIS strata in patient not on baseline statin therapy. However, this relation was not observed in patient on baseline statin therapy. CONCLUSION: In individuals with non-obstructive coronary artery disease, increased risk of adverse events occurs with increasing CAC or SIS who are not on baseline statin therapy. Statin therapy is associated with a mitigation of risk of cardiac events in the presence of increasing atherosclerosis, with no particular threshold of disease burden.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations28
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207