Long-term outcomes of chronic coronary syndrome worldwide: insights from the international CLARIFY registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: Over the last decades, the profile of chronic coronary syndrome has changed substantially. We aimed to determine characteristics and management of patients with chronic coronary syndrome in the contemporary era, as well as outcomes and their determinants. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 32 703 patients (45 countries) with chronic coronary syndrome enrolled in the prospective observational CLARIFY registry (November 2009 to June 2010) with a 5-year follow-up, were analysed. The primary outcome [cardiovascular death or non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI)] 5-year rate was 8.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.7-8.3] overall [male 8.1% (7.8-8.5); female 7.6% (7.0-8.3)]. A cox proportional hazards model showed that the main independent predictors of the primary outcome were prior hospitalization for heart failure, current smoking, atrial fibrillation, living in Central/South America, prior MI, prior stroke, diabetes, current angina, and peripheral artery disease. There was an interaction between angina and prior MI (P = 0.0016); among patients with prior MI, angina was associated with a higher primary event rate [11.8% (95% CI 10.9-12.9) vs. 8.2% (95% CI 7.8-8.7) in patients with no angina, P < 0.001], whereas among patients without prior MI, event rates were similar for patients with [6.3% (95% CI 5.4-7.3)] or without angina [6.4% (95% CI 5.9-7.0)], P > 0.99. Prescription rates of evidence-based secondary prevention therapies were high. CONCLUSION: This description of the spectrum of chronic coronary syndrome patients shows that, despite high rates of prescription of evidence-based therapies, patients with both angina and prior MI are an easily identifiable high-risk group who may deserve intensive treatment. CLINICAL REGISTRY: ISRCTN43070564.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".