MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2915529115 · doi:10.14740/cr817

Timing of Coronary Angiography After Successful Fibrinolytic Therapy in ST-Segment Elevated Myocardial Infarction

2019· article· en· W2915529115 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Salih Kılıç, Cüneyt Türkoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueCardiology Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCardiologyInternal medicineMyocardial infarctionFibrinolytic therapyCoronary angiographyAngiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare outcomes of patients received successful fibrinolytic treatment (FT) for ST-segment elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) and performed coronary angiography (CAG) within 24 - 72 h or after 72 h. METHODS: Between March 2013 and November 2014, 76 STEMI patients received successful FT and performed CAG > 24 h were included in the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the time-interval from FT admission to CAG performing (Group-1, 24 - 72 h (n = 29), Group-2, > 72 h (n = 47)). The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and heart failure. RESULTS: The mean age of patients were 56 ± 11.4 years old (27.6% female). CAG was performed within mean 2.17 ± 0.38 days in the Group-1 and 2.9 ± 11.5 days in the Group 2 (P < 0.001). At short-term follow-up (6 months), MACE rate was higher in Group-2 (21.3%) than Group-1(13.8%), but it was not statistically significant (P = 0.661). The rate of MACE was 37.9% in Group-1 and 38.3% in Group-2 (P = 0.974) in the long-term follow-up (median: 57 months). Overall cardiac mortality rate was 7.9%, the re-infarction rate was 19.7% and heart failure was 17.1% in long-term follow-up, and there were no significant difference between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Present study has shown that performance of CAG after 24 h of successful FT, within 24 - 74 h or > 72 h, did not shown any difference in term of MACE both in short and long-term follow-up.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCardiology ResearchSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207