P5106Prevalence, clinical characteristics and outcomes of procedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention in non ST-elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the TAO trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Few data are available on procedural complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the contemporary era. Purpose: We sought to describe the prevalence of procedural complications of PCI in a non ST- segment elevation ACS cohort (NSTEACS) and to identify their clinical characteristics and their association with clinical outcomes. Methods: TAO (Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome with Otamixaban) was an international randomized controlled trial, comparing otamixaban to unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide in NSTEACS patients undergoing invasive management, in 568 centers in 55 countries from April 2010 to January 2013. All patient who underwent PCI were included in the analysis. Procedural complications were prospectively collected and categorized by investigators. A multivariable model was constructed to identify independent clinical characteristics associated with procedural complications. Ischemic outcomes included death and myocardial infarction (MI) at 7 days after randomization. Bleeding outcomes included TIMI major and minor as well as GUSTO severe/moderate bleeding. Key efficacy and safety outcomes, including procedural complications, were adjudicated by a blinded clinical event committee.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".