MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Doenças coronarianas

2003· article· pt· W4206417238 on OpenAlexaff
Ricardo A. Costa, Alexandra Lansky, Mark Midei, David A. Cox, Charles O’Shaughnessy, Robert Applegate, Stan Fink, Ecatarina Cristea, William D. Knopf, William W. O’Neill, Michael J.B. Kutryk, Michael A. Kuliszewski, Vitor C. F. Gomes, Ricardo Lasevitch, Alberto Brizolara, F. Brito, Hiram G. Bezerra, A. P. A. Caramori, Ana Roedel, Ali- Ce Araújo, Melissa Prade Hemesath, Paulo Caramori, Lucas São, E Pucrs, Einstein-Sp Albert, F. T Luiz, Alexandre Tanajura, Fausto Abizaid, Ibraim Feres, Luiz Antônio de Almeida Pinto, Rodrigo Costa Mattos, Angela Staico, Ângela Tavares Paes, Eduardo Sousa Instituto, Dante Pazzanese, D Cardiologia, Resultados Do, Estudo Dante, Áurea Chaves, Amanda G.M.R. Sousa, Luiz Alberto Mattos, Alexandre Abizaid, Rodolfo Staico, Fausto Feres, Arilson Rodrigues, J. Eduardo Sousa, Implante De Stent, E Lesões, De Novo, S Zanuttini, R Tarbine, M Darwich, Cláudio Fróes de Freitas, J. Ortiz, M Lazarte, Geraldo Neves de Albuquerque Maranhão, O Yared, Marcos Vinícius Fernandes Garcia, Lúcia Andrade, M Sabattini, Marcos Henrique Bubna, M Oliveira, C Medeiro, Juan Carlos Muñoz, Marinella Centemero, Rafael Maestri, Gary S. Mintz

Bibliographic record

VenueArquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia · 2003
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldComputer Science
TopicHealthcare during COVID-19 Pandemic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The DELIVER Clinical Trial was a randomized, single-blinded, parallel-group, multi-center, clinical evaluation of a non-polymeric delivery of paclitaxel -the Achieve TM stent, in the treatment of focal de novo coronary lesions.It was randomized to the stainless Multi-Link Penta TM stent.Objective: Assess angiographic binary restenosis at 240-days in a subset population from the DELIVER Trial.Methods: Between Nov/01 to Mar/02, 1,043 patients were randomized in two groups, implanting either the Achieve TM or ML Penta TM stent, in vessels with 2.5 to 4.0 mm in diameter.From this population, 442 patients completed angiographic follow-up at 8-month.QCA were performed in the postprocedure (PP) and follow-up (FU) angiograms.The angiographic endpoint was 50% decrease in binary restenosis (ABR) at 240-days with the Achieve TM stent.Results: Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics had no significant difference between the two groups.(pre-procedure RVD was larger in the Achieve TM group).PP and FU angiographic in-stent data are shown in the table below.Quantitative Analyses ACHIEVE n=228 PENTA n=214 p PP Reference Vessel Diameter (RVD) mm 2.99±0.552.96±0.52NS PP Minimum Lumen Diameter (MLD) mm 2.90±0.492.84±0.43NS FU -MLD mm 2.08±0.751.86±0.710.001 Acute Gain -mm 1.91±0.511.91±0.41NS Late Loss -mm 0.81±0.600.98±0.570.003 ABR 14.91% (34/228) 20.56% (44/214) 0.076 % DS 26.08±21.8530.85±22.37 0.024 Predictors of ABR -Multivariate analysis P Odds Ratio 2.5 mm Stent Placed < 0.0001 5.775 [3.125, 10.67] Diabetes Requiring Rx 0.0045 2.244 [1.284, 3.921] IIb/IIIa Inhibitor Use 0.0088 2.321 [1.236, 4.358] Prior MI 0.0472 0.527 [0.280, 0.992] NS=non-significant. Conclusions:The Achieve TM paclitaxel-coated stent treatment arm had a significant decrease in neointimal proliferation compared to the ML Penta TM stent control (late loss 0.81 vs 0.98 mm, respectively, p=0.003), however this reduction was insufficient to meet the pre-specified angiographic endpoint (50% decrease in ABR).The predictors of ABR at 240-days for the subset of patients from the DELIVER Clinical Trial with angiographic follow-up were small vessels (2.5 mm diameter stent implanted), diabetes requiring Rx, use of glycoprotein inhibitor IIb/IIIa and presence of prior MI.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArquivos Brasileiros de CardiologiaSame topicHealthcare during COVID-19 PandemicFrench-language works237,207