Patient Characteristics, Procedural Details, and Outcomes of Contemporary Percutaneous Coronary Interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The prevalence and success of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) varies widely between regions, with South Asia displaying some of the greatest regional differences. Objectives: Examining PCI procedures and their outcomes in Pakistan over time and comparing this information to that from other countries is the goal of this study. Methods: Throughout the course of a year, information was collected from several cardiac catheterization laboratories in Pakistan. An in-depth history of each patient was recorded, along with data on their procedures, the tools and drugs they required, their outcomes, and any complications that may have arisen. Results: The study contained information from 22,741 patients. Their average age was 64.2 years (11.7) and they were predominantly male (70%). Acute coronary syndrome was the most prevalent symptom (57%), while ST-elevation myocardial infarction was the most common type of heart attack (28%). Multivessel disease was present in nearly two-thirds of patients, and 11% of those patients also had substantial left main stenosis. Almost half of these procedures (44.2%) opted for the transradial route. In spite of the high complexity of the lesions (56.9% class C lesion), the operative success rate was quite good at 95.2%. There was a 5.3% rate of procedure-related complications and a 2.8% rate of in-hospital deaths. Conclusion: The collected data shed light on the state of PCI in the United States, both in terms of its implementation and its results. Despite the complexity of the lesions being treated, the success rate was high, and problems were minimal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".