MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380624965 · doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-073843

Effectiveness of GRACE risk score in patients admitted to hospital with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (UKGRIS): parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial

2023· article· en· W4380624965 on OpenAlexafffund
Chris P Gale, Deborah Stocken, Suleman Aktaa, Catherine Reynolds, Rachael Gilberts, David Brieger, Kathryn Carruthers, Derek P. Chew, Shaun G. Goodman, Catherine Fernandez, Linda Sharples, Andrew T. Yan, Keith A.A. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myocardial Infarction Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian VIGOUR CentreSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
FundersEsperion TherapeuticsHLS TherapeuticsServierEuropean Society of CardiologyDuke Clinical Research InstituteNovo NordiskDaiichi-SankyoNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchRegeneron PharmaceuticalsBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyAstraZenecaCSL BehringYork UniversityUniversity of TorontoBritish Heart FoundationCleveland ClinicVifor PharmaPfizerHeart and Stroke Foundation of CanadaAmerican RegentSanofiAmgen
KeywordsMedicineAcute coronary syndromeHazard ratioConfidence intervalGuidelineMyocardial infarctionOdds ratioInternal medicineClinical endpointCluster randomised controlled trialRandomized controlled trialPediatricsPhysical therapyEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Objective To determine the effectiveness of risk stratification using the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score (GRS) for patients presenting to hospital with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome. Design Parallel group cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting Patients presenting with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome to 42 hospitals in England between 9 March 2017 and 30 December 2019. Participants Patients aged ≥18 years with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. Intervention Hospitals were randomised (1:1) to patient management by standard care or according to the GRS and associated guidelines. Main outcome measures Primary outcome measures were use of guideline recommended management and time to the composite of cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, new onset heart failure hospital admission, and readmission for cardiovascular event. Secondary measures included the duration of hospital stay, EQ-5D-5L (five domain, five level version of the EuroQoL index), and the composite endpoint components. Results 3050 participants (1440 GRS, 1610 standard care) were recruited in 38 UK clusters (20 GRS, 18 standard care). The mean age was 65.7 years (standard deviation 12), 69% were male, and the mean baseline GRACE scores were 119.5 (standard deviation 31.4) and 125.7 (34.4) for GRS and standard care, respectively. The uptake of guideline recommended processes was 77.3% for GRS and 75.3% for standard care (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 0.70 to 1.92, P=0.56). The time to the first composite cardiac event was not significantly improved by the GRS (hazard ratio 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.16, P=0.37). Baseline adjusted EQ-5D-5L utility at 12 months (difference −0.01, 95% confidence interval −0.06 to 0.04) and the duration of hospital admission within 12 months (mean 11.2 days, standard deviation 18 days v 11.8 days, 19 days) were similar for GRS and standard care. Conclusions In adults presenting to hospital with suspected non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome, the GRS did not improve adherence to guideline recommended management or reduce cardiovascular events at 12 months. Trial registration ISRCTN 29731761

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations32
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicAcute Myocardial Infarction ResearchFrench-language works237,207