Canadian-American Differences in the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in the GUSTO IIb Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little information exists concerning practice patterns between Canada and the United States in the management of myocardial infarction (MI) patients without ST-segment elevation and unstable angina. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined the practice patterns and 1-year outcomes of 2250 US and 922 Canadian patients without ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes in the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) IIb trial. The US hospitals more commonly had on-site facilities for angiography and revascularization. These procedures were performed more often and sooner in the United States than Canada, whereas Canadian patients were more likely to undergo noninvasive stress testing. The length of initial hospital stay was 1 day longer for Canadian than US patients. Recurrent and refractory ischemia was more common in Canada. One-year mortality was comparable between the 2 countries. However, at 6 months, even after baseline differences were accounted for, the (re)MI rate was significantly higher in Canadian than US patients with unstable angina (8.8% versus 5.8%, P:=0.039), as was the composite rate of death or (re)MI (13.1% versus 9.1%, P:=0.016). CONCLUSIONS: One-year mortality was comparable between Canada and the United States in both MI and unstable angina cohorts despite higher intervention rates in the United States. However, outcomes at 6 months among patients with unstable angina differed. Whereas more frequent coronary interventions were not associated with reduced recurrent MI or death among MI patients without ST elevation, they may favorably affect outcomes in patients with unstable angina.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".