The CatLet score and outcome prediction in acute myocardial infarction for patients undergoing primary percutaneous intervention: A proof‐of‐concept study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Coronary Artery Tree description and Lesion EvaluaTion (CatLet) score accommodating the variability in coronary anatomy is a recently developed and comprehensive angiographic scoring system aimed at assisting in risk-stratification of patients with coronary artery disease. However, a validation of this angiographic scoring system is lacking. METHODS: The CatLet score was calculated retrospectively in 308 consecutively enrolled patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint, major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), was stratified according to CatLet tertiles: CatLetlow ≤14 (n = 124), CatLetmid 15-21 (n = 82) and CatLettop ≥22 (n = 102). RESULTS: The CatLet score alone or after adjusting for a broad spectrum of risk factors, significantly predicted clinical outcomes at a median 4.3-year follow-up. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95%CI)/unit higher score were 1.05 (1.04-1.07) for MACCE, 1.06 (1.04-1.07) for cardiac death, and 1.05 (1.04-1.07) for all-cause death. When compared to the SYNTAX score, improved discrimination and better calibration of this CatLet score resulted in a significantly refined risk stratification. The overall category-free net reclassification improvement afforded by this CatLet score was as follows: 37.2% (p = .008) for MACCEs, 35.5% (p = .0249) for cardiac death, and 31.8% (p = .0316) for all-cause death. CONCLUSIONS: The ability to integrate the variability in coronary anatomy into angiographic scoring makes the CatLet score a more specific tool for outcome predictions in AMI. (http://www.chictr.org.cn. Unique identifiers: ChiCTR-POC-17013536).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".