MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981659316 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehz748.0699

P1952Value of GRACE risk score in risk stratification in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing PCI in the Global Leaders study

2019· article· en· W2981659316 on OpenAlexaff
Hidenori Komiyama, Ply Chichareon, Christian W. Hamm, Peter Jüni, Marco Valgimigli, P Vranckx, Stephan Windecker, Yoshinobu Onuma, G Stegg, Patrick W. Serruys

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsOccupational Cancer Research Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeInternal medicineConventional PCIPercutaneous coronary interventionFramingham Risk ScoreTicagrelorClinical endpointAspirinRandomized controlled trialCardiologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims We sought to evaluate the value of GRACE risk score in stratifying acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the Global Leaders study. Methods Global Leaders study was a prospective, multi-center, open-label, all-comers, randomized controlled trial comparing ticagrelor monotherapy after 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) as experimental therapy with aspirin monotherapy after 12 months of conventional DAPT (reference therapy) in patients who received PCI with biolimus-A9 eluting stent. We assessed the predictive value of GRACE risk score in ACS patients undergoing PCI in the present analysis. Patients were stratified according to GRACE risk score into low (1–108), moderate (109–140), High (141–372) risk group. Clinical outcomes at 2 years after PCI were assessed and compared among risk groups. Interaction between GRACE risk score and antiplatelet regimen were analyzed by the interaction term in Cox model. Results GRACE risk score was calculated from 8 clinical parameters at presentation. Among ACS patients, 1664 patients were categorized in low risk group, 2903 patients were in moderate risk group, and 2028 patients were in high risk group. The rate of all-cause mortality, any stroke, patient-oriented composite endpoint (POCE) were highest in the high-risk group at 2 years (All-cause mortality; low risk 1.4%, moderate risk 2.5%, high risk 6.1%, log rank test p value <0.0001, any stroke; low risk 0.7%, moderate risk 1.0%, high risk 2.0%, log rank test p value 0.001, POCE; low risk 12.4%, moderate risk 11.9%, high risk 16.61%, log rank test p value <0.0001). The rate of myocardial infarction, all revascularization and definite or probable stent thrombosis were not different among three groups. There was no interaction between GRACE risk score and treatment regimen on clinical outcomes at 2 years. Conclusion GRACE risk score is valuable in identifying ACS patients with highest risk of all-cause mortality, any stroke and POCE at 2 years after PCI. In ACS, ticagrelor monotherapy did not improve the outcomes at 2 years in the three strata of the GRACE risk score.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases→French-language works237,207→