MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4205179208 · doi:10.1161/circ.137.suppl_1.p155

Abstract P155: Risk for Recurrent Events Among Patients Receiving Intensive Medical Management Following Myocardial Infarction

2018· article· en· W4205179208 on OpenAlexaff
Lisandro D. Colantonio, Todd M. Brown, Vera Bittner, Hong Zhao, Michael E. Farkouh, Keri L. Monda, Robert S. Rosenson, Ransi Somaratne, Mark Woodward, Paul Muntner

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionIntensive careInternal medicinePopulationIntensive care unitEmergency medicineStatinCardiologyIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Randomized trials have shown that several medications reduce the risk for recurrent coronary heart disease (CHD) events following myocardial infarction (MI). Knowing the risk for recurrent events among patients receiving intensive medical management following MI can inform patient-physician shared decision making. Objective: To estimate the risk for CHD events among patients receiving intensive medical management following an MI hospitalization. Methods: We identified US adults 18-64 years with commercial health insurance in Marketscan who had an MI hospitalization (defined by an ICD-9 code of 410.x0 or 410.x1 in the primary discharge diagnosis position) in 2014-2015. Intensive medical management was defined as filling a high-intensity statin, renin-angiotensin system inhibitor, beta-blocker and antiplatelet agent within 30 days following hospital discharge for MI. Patients receiving intensive medical management were matched 1:2 by age, sex and calendar year to randomly selected controls from the general population and followed for recurrent MI and CHD events (i.e., MI or coronary revascularization). Results: Among MI patients (n=17,643, mean age 55 years, 74% male), 29.6% received intensive medical management. After adjustment for comorbid conditions, intensive medical management was more common among men (relative risk [95% CI] 1.14 [1.07, 1.20]), those who received a stent during their MI hospitalization (2.54 [2.37, 2.73]) and those who received cardiologist care (1.17 [1.11, 1.22]) and cardiac rehabilitation (1.14 [1.08, 1.20]) after hospital discharge. The risk for recurrent MI and CHD events was higher among MI patients receiving intensive medical management compared to controls, overall and when restricted to MI patients with high medication adherence ( Table ). Conclusion: MI patients receiving intensive medical management have a substantial residual risk for recurrent CHD events.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicCardiovascular Health and Risk Factors→French-language works237,207→