Intensified antiplatelet therapy in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention with high on‐treatment platelet reactivity: the OPTImal Management of Antithrombotic Agents (OPTIMA)‐2 Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HOPR) is associated with increased risk of cardiovascular events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We randomised post-PCI patients with HOPR after 5 days of standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to intensified therapy with aspirin 100 mg once daily in combination with either clopidogrel 150 mg once daily, clopidogrel 75 mg once daily plus cilostazol 100 mg twice daily, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, or standard therapy with clopidogrel 75 mg once daily (STD) for 1 month, after which all patients were switched to standard DAPT for a further 11 months. The primary outcome was residual HOPR rate at 1 month. We screened 1724 patients with light transmission aggregation studies and randomised 434 with HOPR. At 1 month the proportion of patients with persistent HOPR was significantly lower in the intensified therapy groups compared with STD group. Compared to the group receiving STD therapy, those receiving intensified therapy had significantly lower rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) at both 1 month and 12 months with no significant increase in bleeding. In patients with post-PCI HOPR, 1 month of intensified antiplatelet therapy provides greater platelet inhibition and improves outcomes without increasing bleeding. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique Identifier: NCT01955200.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".