Documento de posición para la mejora en la reperfusión del infarto agudo de miocardio con elevación del ST en Latinoamérica
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The treatment of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction has barriers depending on the geographic region. Primary coronary angioplasty is the treatment of choice, if it is performed on time and by experienced operators. However, when it is not available, the administration of fibrinolysis and referral for rescue angioplasty, in case of negative reperfusion, is the best strategy. In the same way, coronary angioplasty, as part of a pharmacoinvasive strategy, is the best alternative when there is positive reperfusion. The development of infarct treatment networks increases the number of patients reperfused within the recommended times and improves outcomes. In Latin America, national myocardial infarction treatment programs should focus on improving outcomes, and long-term success depends on working toward defined goals and enhancing functionality, therefore programs should develop capacity to measure their performance. The following document discusses all of these alternatives and suggests opportunities for improvement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".