Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes Beyond the First Year: A Canadian Clinical Practice Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Antithrombotic management following acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) has evolved significantly. However, given lingering uncertainty as to when an ACS may be considered stable, there is the possibility of practice divergence beyond the first year. METHODS: An online adaptive survey describing patients with varying cardiac and extracardiac ischemic risk was developed in order to asses self-reported physician practice intentions pertaining to the antithrombotic management of ACS patients who lack a formal indication for therapeutic anticoagulation. Provincial "champions" (Prince Edward Island not represented) were identified to ensure dissemination of the survey within their jurisdictions via 3 coordinated e-mailings; the survey was made available in French and English from November 2018 through January 2019. RESULTS: A total of 135 practitioners responded to the survey (response rate 15%). Surveys were fully completed in all cases. Nearly all respondents (97%) were cardiologists; 76% worked at an academic center, and 54% had been in practice ≥ 10 years. Most respondents (81%-90%, depending on the scenario) preferred ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy as the initial ACS treatment. However, beyond 12 months, management decisions differed significantly according to the balance of cardiac and extracardiac risk. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a first look at how the introduction of rivaroxaban 2.5 mg might be integrated into the clinical management of ACS patients beyond the first year in Canada. Whether to pursue dual antiplatelet therapy or transition early to low-dose rivaroxaban plus acetylsalicylic acid will likely be driven by patient clinical characteristics and perceived cardiac vs extra-cardiac ischemic risk.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".