Ticagrelor With or Without Aspirin in Chinese Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A TWILIGHT China Substudy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk/benefit tradeoff of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention may vary in East Asian patients as compared with their non-East Asian counterparts. METHODS: The double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized TWILIGHT trial (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention) enrolled patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. After 3 months of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin, event-free and adherent patients remained on ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding; the key secondary end point was the first occurrence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. RESULTS: =0.34). There was no interaction between the region of randomization (China versus the rest of the world) and randomized treatment assignment in terms of the primary or key secondary end points. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor monotherapy significantly reduced clinically relevant bleeding without increasing ischemic events as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin in Chinese patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT02270242.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".