External applicability of the COMPASS trial: the Western Denmark Heart Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: In the COMPASS trial, combined aspirin and rivaroxaban treatment reduced ischaemic events in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). We estimated the proportion of COMPASS eligible patients among unselected patients undergoing coronary angiography (CAG) and compared outcome rates among COMPASS eligible and non-eligible patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We applied the COMPASS study criteria on patients undergoing CAG in Western Denmark (2004-11). Both COMPASS eligible and non-eligible patients had CAD/PAD and met no exclusion criteria, but only COMPASS eligible patients met the inclusion criteria. We assessed the COMPASS primary endpoint of cardiovascular death, ischaemic stroke, haemorrhagic stroke, or myocardial infarction (MI). We computed event rates and adjusted incidence rate ratios (aIRRs). Of 80 071 patients undergoing CAG, 27 939 did not have CAD or PAD and were not considered. Of the 52 132 patients remaining, 11 930 were COMPASS eligible. Rates of the primary endpoint were 4.8 (95% confidence interval 4.6-5.0) events per 100 person-years among COMPASS eligible patients and 2.3 (2.2-2.4) among COMPASS non-eligible patients [aIRR 1.7 (1.6-1.9)]. COMPASS eligible patients also had higher risks of cardiovascular death [aIRR 2.5 (2.1-3.0)], ischaemic stroke [aIRR 1.4 (1.2-1.6)], and MI [aIRR 1.9 (1.7-2.1)]. CONCLUSION: In this all-comers CAG cohort, 15% were eligible for combined aspirin and rivaroxaban treatment. COMPASS eligible patients had up to 2.5-fold higher rates of cardiovascular events than non-eligible patients. The higher incidence of ischaemic events in COMPASS eligible patients highlights an unmet need for additional preventive measures.
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 | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".