MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200199090 · doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2021.12.004

The prospective randomized trial of the optimal evaluation of cardiac symptoms and revascularization: Rationale and design of the PRECISE trial

2021· article· en· W4200199090 on OpenAlexaff
Michael G. Nanna, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, Christopher B. Fordyce, Daniel B. Mark, Manesh R. Patel, Hussein R. Al‐Khalidi, Michelle D. Kelsey, Beth Martinez, Eric Yow, Sarah Mullen, Gregg W. Stone, Ori Ben‐Yehuda, James E. Udelson, Campbell Rogers, Pamela S. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Heart Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineRevascularizationRandomized controlled trialCoronary artery diseaseChest painClinical endpointMyocardial infarctionMaceFractional flow reserveIntensive care medicineEmergency medicineInternal medicineConventional PCICoronary angiography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Clinicians vary widely in their preferred diagnostic approach to patients with non-acute chest pain. Such variation exposes patients to potentially avoidable risks, as well as inefficient care with increased costs and unresolved patient concerns. The Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization (PRECISE) trial (NCT03702244) compares an investigational “precision” diagnostic strategy to a usual care diagnostic strategy in participants with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease (CAD). PRECISE randomized 2103 participants with stable chest pain and a clinical recommendation for testing for suspected CAD at 68 outpatient international sites. The investigational precision evaluation strategy started with a pre-test risk assessment using the PROMISE Minimal Risk Tool. Those at lowest risk were assigned to deferred testing (no immediate testing), and the remainder received coronary computed tomographic angiography (cCTA) with selective fractional flow reserve (FFRCT) for any stenosis meeting a threshold of ≥30% and <90%. For participants randomized to usual care, the clinical care team selected the initial noninvasive or invasive test (diagnostic angiography) according to customary practice. The use of cCTA as the initial diagnostic strategy was proscribed by protocol for the usual care strategy. The primary endpoint is time to a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACE: all-cause death or non-fatal myocardial infarction) or invasive cardiac catheterization without obstructive CAD at 1 year. Secondary endpoints include health care costs and quality of life. PRECISE will determine whether a precision approach comprising a strategically deployed combination of risk-based deferred testing and cCTA with selective FFRCT improves the clinical outcomes and efficiency of the diagnostic evaluation of stable chest pain over usual care.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0090.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Heart JournalSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207