MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981637768 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz745.0005

3037The prognostic significance of grade of ischemia in patients with STEMI: a substudy of the randomized trial of primary PCI with or without routine manual thrombectomy (TOTAL trial)

2019· article· en· W2981637768 on OpenAlexaff
Joonas Leivo, Eero Anttonen, Sanjit S. Jolly, Vladimír Džavík, Jyri Koivumäki, Minna Tahvanainen, Kimmo Koivula, Kjell Nikus, J Wang, John A. Cairns, Kari Niemelä, Markku Eskola

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity Health NetworkPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineCardiologyHazard ratioConventional PCIMyocardial infarctionCardiogenic shockRandomized controlled trialQRS complexIschemiaConfidence intervalHeart failure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The importance of grade of ischemia (GI) classification in the risk assessment of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction has been shown previously. Grade 3 ischemia (G3I) is defined by the Sclarovsky-Birnbaum grading system as ECG with ST-elevation and distortion of the terminal portion of the QRS complex in two or more adjacent leads, while grade 2 ischemia (G2I) is defined as ECG with ST-elevation without QRS distortion. Methods In a substudy of the international, multicenter, prospective, randomized Trial of Routine Aspiration Thrombectomy with PCI versus PCI Alone in Patients with STEMI (TOTAL), we studied the prognostic impact of the grade of ischemia classification on the outcome in patients with STEMI (n=7,211). The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent MI, cardiogenic shock, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure within one year. Results The primary outcome occurred in 153 of 1,563 patients (9.8%) in the G3I group vs. 364 of 5,648 patients (6.4%) in the G2I group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.29 to 1.88; p<0.001). The rates of cardiovascular death (4.8% with G3I vs. 2.5% with G2I; HR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.45 to 2.54; p<0.001) and all-cause mortality (5.2% with G3I vs. 3.3% with G2I; HR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.25 to 2.10; p<0.001) were also higher in patients with G3I. The rate of stroke or TIA were similar within the two groups (1.1% with G3I vs. 1.0% with G2I; HR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.95; p=0.650). The grade of ischemia (G3I vs G2I) was shown to be an independent predictor of primary outcome in adjusted multivariable analysis (adjusted HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.74; p<0.001). Conclusions STEMI patients with G3I in the presenting ECG proved to have an increased rate of cardiovascular death, recurrent MI, cardiogenic shock, or NYHA class IV heart failure within one year compared to patients with G2I. Acknowledgement/Funding Competitive State Research Financing of the Expert Responsibility area of Tampere University Hospital, The unit of Heart Center Co. [Z60064]

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management→French-language works237,207→