Oral Abstract presentation: Risk assessment and outcome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PARR-2 trial showed that FDG PET imaging guided revascularization had a trend for event-free survival benefit.A post-hoc sub-group analysis (Ottawa FIVE substudy) looking at the benefit of FDG PET in an experienced center with ready access to FDG was done.Methods: Patients with an EF , 35%, suspected CAD and no MI within 4 weeks were randomized to FDG PET guided therapy or standard care.The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of cardiac death, MI or cardiac rehospitalization.Revascularization was recommended, when PET identified viable myocardium.Alternate imaging in the control arm was performed at the MD's discretion.Results: Patients (n ¼ 111) were randomized to the PET and standard care arms (56 PET; 55 standard care).There were no significant differences between groups in in age, gender, ejection fraction, creatinine,diabetes, prior CABG and symptoms.At 1 year follow-up, there were 11 (21%) composite outcome events in the PET arm compared to 24 (44%) standard care arm.Cox proportional hazard regression (Fig. 1) showed a benefit for PET guided strategy (hazard ratio ¼ 0.33; 95% CI 0.16-0.69;p ¼ 0.003).Thirty-five first events were identified including 6 cardiac deaths, 4 myocardial infarctions and 25 cardiac hospitalizations.There were 4 deaths in the PET arm and 8 in the standard care arm.Patients in Ottawa FIVE were older (64 + 10 vs 62 + 10, p ¼ 0.08), had lower EF (25 + 7 vs 27+ 8, p ¼ 0.04) and had less previous CABG (13% vs 21%, p ¼ 0.07), compared to the rest of the patients in PARR2.At 1 year follow-up, patients in either arm in the rest of PARR2, had 33% composite primary outcome events (p ¼ NS).Conclusion: FDG PET guided revascularization improves clinical outcomes in an experienced center with ready access to FDG, despite an older population with lower EF.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.088 | 0.008 |
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".