MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Transradial Versus Transfemoral Access for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction

2021· review· en· W3134981943 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Interventions · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVascular Procedures and Complications
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaHamilton Health SciencesUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePercutaneous coronary interventionMyocardial infarctionMeta-analysisStroke (engine)Internal medicineRelative riskRandomized controlled trialMEDLINESystematic reviewCardiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Transradial access (TRA) has emerged as the preferred vascular access site for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate 30-day all-cause mortality comparing TRA with transfemoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies published from inception until January 7, 2020, in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science Core Collection. Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used for abstracting data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 30 days. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, major bleeding, stroke, and access site complications. Results: A total of 14 studies representing 11 707 patients (5802 patients with TRA; 5905 patients with transfemoral access) were included in this systematic review. All-cause mortality (N=8 studies) was significantly reduced in the TRA group with an overall risk ratio (RR) of 0.72 (95% CI, 0.56–0.92) in the pooled analysis. Major bleeding (N=12 studies; RR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.45–0.80]) and access site complications (N=9 studies; RR, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.30–0.53]) were significantly higher in the transfemoral access group. There was no statistical difference in reinfarction (N=10 studies; RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.75–1.25]) or stroke (N=8 studies; RR, 1.47 [95% CI, 0.87–2.50]). Conclusions: TRA is associated with lower 30-day mortality, major bleeding, and access site complications when compared with transfemoral access in ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ ; Unique identifier: 127955.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.017
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.251 · 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