2020 Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations on Antithrombotic Management for High-risk Chronic Coronary Syndrome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The unique characteristics of patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) in the Asia-Pacific region, heterogeneous approaches because of differences in accesses and resources and low number of patients from the Asia-Pacific region in pivotal studies, mean that international guidelines cannot be routinely applied to these populations. The Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology developed these consensus recommendations to summarise current evidence on the management of CCS and provide recommendations to assist clinicians treat patients from the region. The consensus recommendations were developed by an expert consensus panel who reviewed and appraised the available literature, with focus on data from patients in Asia-Pacific. Consensus statements were developed then put to an online vote. The resulting recommendations provide guidance on the assessment and management of bleeding and ischaemic risks in Asian CCS patients. Furthermore, the selection of long-term antithrombotic therapy is discussed, including the role of single antiplatelet therapy, dual antiplatelet therapy and dual pathway inhibition therapy.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.005 |
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".