MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087038991 · doi:10.1093/ehjcvp/pvaa106

PRECISE-DAPT score for bleeding risk prediction in patients on dual or single antiplatelet regimens: insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY

2020· article· en· W3087038991 on OpenAlexaff
Felice Gragnano, Dik Heg, Anna Franzone, Eugène McFadden, Sergio Leonardi, Raffaele Piccolo, Pascal Vranckx, Mattia Branca, Patrick W. Serruys, Edouard Benit, Christoph Liebetrau, Luc Janssens, Maurizio Ferrario, Aleksander Żurakowski, Roberto Diletti, Marcello Dominici, Kurt Huber, Ton Slagboom, Paweł Buszman, Leonardo Bolognese, Carlo Tumscitz, Krzysztof Bryniarski, Adel Aminian, Mathias Vrolix, Ivo Petrov, Scot Garg, Christoph Naber, Janusz Prokopczuk, Christian Hamm, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Peter Jüni, Stephan Windecker, Marco Valgimigli

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular Pharmacotherapy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersAgence Nationale de la RechercheMedicines CompanyBiosensors International GroupAstraZeneca
KeywordsDual (grammatical number)Internal medicineMedicinePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The five-item PRECISE-DAPT, integrating age, haemoglobin, white-blood-cell count, creatinine clearance, and prior bleeding, predicts bleeding risk in patients on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after stent implantation. We sought to assess whether the bleeding risk prediction offered by the PRECISE-DAPT remains valid among patients receiving ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month onwards after coronary stenting instead of standard DAPT and having or not having centrally adjudicated bleeding endpoints. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRECISE-DAPT was calculated in 14 928 and 7134 patients from GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY trials, respectively. The ability of the score to predict Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5 bleeding was assessed and compared among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy (experimental strategy) or standard DAPT (reference strategy) from 1 month after drug-eluting stent implantation. Bleeding endpoints were investigator-reported or centrally adjudicated in GLOBAL LEADERS and GLASSY, respectively. At 2 years, the c-indexes for the score among patients treated with the experimental or reference strategy were 0.67 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-0.71] vs. 0.63 (95% CI: 0.59-0.67) in GLOBAL LEADERS (P = 0.27), and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73) vs. 0.66 (95% CI: 0.61-0.72) in GLASSY (P = 0.88). Decision curve analysis showed net benefit using the PRECISE-DAPT to guide bleeding risk assessment under both treatment strategies. Results were consistent between investigator-reported and adjudicated endpoints and using the simplified four-item PRECISE-DAPT. CONCLUSION: The PRECISE-DAPT offers a prediction model that proved similarly effective to predict clinically relevant bleeding among patients on ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month after coronary stenting compared with standard DAPT and appears to be unaffected by the presence or absence of adjudicated bleeding endpoints.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations63
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal - Cardiovascular PharmacotherapySame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207