A double-blind randomised placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous coronary intervention for the relief of stable angina without antianginal medications: design and rationale of the ORBITA-2 trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is frequently performed for stable angina. However, the first blinded trial, ORBITA, did not show a placebo-controlled increment in exercise time in patients with single-vessel disease, at 6 weeks, on maximal antianginal therapy. ORBITA-2 will assess the placebo-controlled efficacy of PCI on angina frequency in patients with single- or multivessel disease, at 12 weeks, on no antianginal therapy. ORBITA-2 is a double-blind placebo-controlled trial randomising participants with (i) angina at presentation, (ii) documented angina during the 2-week pre-randomisation symptom assessment phase, (iii) objective evidence of ischaemia, (iv) single- or multivessel disease, and (v) clinical eligibility for PCI. At enrolment, antianginals will be stopped, and angina questionnaires completed. Participants will record their symptoms on a smartphone application daily throughout the trial and will undergo exercise treadmill testing and stress echocardiography at pre-randomisation. They will then undergo coronary angiography with unblinded invasive physiology assessment. Eligible participants will then be sedated to a deep level of conscious sedation and randomised 1:1 between PCI and placebo. After the 12-week blinded follow-up period, they will return for questionnaires, exercise testing and stress echocardiography assessment. If angina becomes intolerable, antianginals will be introduced using a prespecified medication protocol. The primary outcome is an angina symptom score using an ordinal clinical outcome scale for angina. Secondary outcomes include exercise treadmill time, angina frequency, angina severity and quality of life. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03742050.
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 | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.004 |
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.
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".