Meta-analysis Comparing Outcomes of Type 2 Myocardial Infarction and Type 1 Myocardial Infarction With a Focus on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are important knowledge gaps in type 2 myocardial infarction (T2MI). Our primary objective was to compare the outcomes of patients with T2MI with those of patients with type 1 myocardial infarction (T1MI). Our secondary objective was to determine whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating dual antiplatelets (DAPTs) have explicitly included patients with T2MI. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis comparing outcomes of patients with T2MI with patients with T1MI and a separate systematic review to evaluate the inclusion of T2MI in RCTs evaluating DAPT. There were 19 cohorts enrolling 48,829 patients (40,604 with T1MI and 5361 with T2MI) and 51 RCTs enrolling 188,132 patients with acute coronary syndrome. RESULTS: 0.0001, respectively). There was no published evaluation of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of DAPT in patients with T2MI. CONCLUSION: Patients with T2MI are at increased risk of adjusted all-cause long-term mortality compared with patients with T1MI. The role of DAPT remains unclear in T2MI.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".