P1933Comparing treatment recommendations for the DAPT and PRECISE-DAPT scores after percutaneous coronary intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor, is the standard therapy for patients following PCI. Duration of treatment with DAPT has been controversial despite large studies. Current guidelines recommend treatment duration be individualized based on risk of ischemia and bleeding. To facilitate treatment decisions, risk assessment tools, including the DAPT and PRECISE-DAPT scores, have been developed. Purpose As components of these scores differ, the variability of recommendation remains unknown. We set to evaluate inter-tool concordance in treatment recommendation in a cohort of patients after PCI. Methods Using data from our local PCI registry, we calculated the PRECISE-DAPT at baseline following PCI and the DAPT after 1 year of treatment for 311 consecutive patients with complete data for both scores to be calculated. Based on their DAPT and PRECISE-DAPT scores, patients were grouped into concordant for long-term treatment (DAPT ≥2 and PRECISE-DAPT <25) or concordant for shortened treatment (DAPT <2 and PRECISE- DAPT ≥25). All other patients were considered discordant. We then performed a concordance analysis using Cohen's kappa to measure degree of agreement. Results Among the 311 patients, mean age was 63.4 (SD 11.6); 245 (79%) were men, 93 (29.9%) had history of a prior MI, 130 (41.8%) were current smokers, 32 (10.3%) had a history of CHF or LVEF <30%, 82 (26.3%) had diabetes and 196 (63.0%) were previously diagnosed with hypertension. Index event consisted of a STEMI in 101 (32.4%), NSTEMI in 93 (29.9%), unstable angina in 27 (8.7%), stable angina in 67 (21.5%) and the remaining 23 (7.4%) had other indications for PCI. Mean DAPT score was 1.52 (SD 1.37). Mean PRECISE-DAPT was 17.65 (SD 12.73). The DAPT recommended long-term treatment for 162 (52.1%) and shortened treatment for 149 (47.9%). The PRECISE-DAPT recommended long-term treatment for 245 (78.9%) and shortened treatment for 66 (21.2%). The overall proportion of agreement between the two risk scores was 56.6% with a Cohen's kappa index of 0.110 (95% CI, 0.017 to 0.204). See Table. Concordance Analysis PRECISE-DAPT Score Recommendation Long Term (N=245) Shortened (N=66) DAPT Score Recommendation Long Term (N=162) 136 (43.7%) 26 (8.4%) Concordant for Long Term Treatment Shortened (N=149) 109 (35%) 40 (12.8%) Concordant for Shortened Treatment Conclusion Comparison of the DAPT score and the PRECISE-DAPT score showed concordance in treatment recommendation in only 56.6% of patients. Given the poor agreement between these tools, prospective concurrent evaluations and correlation to outcomes will be required in future studies.
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 | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".