MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Patient Selection and Clinical Outcomes in the STOPDAPT-2 Trial

2021· article· en· W3127003493 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kenji Kanenawa, Kyohei Yamaji, Hiroaki Tashiro, Takenori Domei, Kenji Andò, Hirotoshi Watanabe, Takeshi Kimura

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionPercutaneous coronary interventionInternal medicineStentThrombolysisHazard ratioStroke (engine)Clinical trialSurgeryRandomized controlled trialConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: We sought to evaluate the impact of patient selection for the STOPDAPT-2 trial (Short and Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Cobalt-Chromium Stent-2) on clinical outcomes in a registry from a single center that participated in the STOPDAPT-2 trial. Methods: Among 2190 consecutive patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using stent in Kokura Memorial Hospital during the enrollment period of the STOPDAPT-2 trial, 521 patients had exclusion criteria such as in-hospital major complications, anticoagulant use, or prior intracranial bleeding (ineligible group). Among 1669 patients who met the eligibility criteria (eligible group), 582 were enrolled (enrolled group) and 1087 were not enrolled (nonenrolled group) in the STOPDAPT-2 trial. The primary outcome measure was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction major and minor bleeding. Results: Compared with the enrolled group, patients in the nonenrolled group more often had high bleeding risk according to the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk definition (52.6% versus 41.2%; P <0.001) and were frailer according to the Canadian Study of Health and Aging Clinical Frailty Scale (intermediate, 21.4% versus 14.1%; high, 6.4% versus 2.1%; P <0.001). The cumulative 1-year incidences of the primary outcome measure, all-cause death, and major bleeding were significantly higher in the nonenrolled group than in the enrolled group (7.2% versus 4.5%, P =0.03; 4.1% versus 0.9%, P <0.001; and 4.3% versus 2.1%, P =0.03, respectively) and in the ineligible group than in the eligible group (21.2% versus 6.3%, P <0.001; 9.9% versus 3.0%, P <0.001; and 13.5% versus 3.5%, P <0.001, respectively). Conclusions: Patients who were ineligible, eligible but not enrolled, and enrolled in the STOPDAPT-2 trial had different risk profiles and clinical outcomes, suggesting important implications in applying the trial results in daily clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.347

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular InterventionsSame topicCoronary Interventions and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207