MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract 16771: Patient Selection for Therapies to Prevent Major Adverse Limb Events

2018· article· en· W4395036928 on OpenAlexaff
Marc P. Bonaca, Robert P. Giugliano, Patrice Nault, Bejamin M Scirica, Terje R. Pedersen, Deepak L. Bhatt, Anthony Keech, Robert F. Storey, Philippe Gabríel Steg, Marc Cohen, Erica M Goodrich, Sabina A. Murphy, Marc S. Sabatine, David A. Morrow

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre intégré de santé et de services sociaux de Chaudière-AppalachesCentre Intégré de Santé et de Services Sociaux des Laurentides
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectIntensive care medicineSelection (genetic algorithm)Physical medicine and rehabilitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Recently medical therapies have shown benefit in reducing major adverse limb events (MALE) including acute limb ischemia (ALI), urgent revascularization for ischemia, and ischemic amputation in patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease. Defining predictors of MALE may facilitate patient selection for application of novel therapies. Hypothesis: Clinical characteristics can be used to develop a risk score that will predict MALE Methods: Clinical characteristics independently predictive of ALI were identified among 3,985 patients with PAD randomized to placebo in TRA 2°P-TIMI 50 and were used to develop a risk score (c-statistic 0.82). This score was prospectively validated in 7,053 and 13,723 placebo patients from the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 and FOURIER trials respectively. Risk in each trial was evaluated stratified by the investigational treatment (vorapaxar, ticagrelor, or evolocumab). Results: In the broad PAD placebo population of TRA 2°P-TIMI 50, seven independent predictors of ALI with relative risks ranging from 1.69 to ~10 fold were identified including claudication, prior peripheral revascularization or amputation, ankle brachial index ≤ 0.5, heart failure, low body weight, elevated CRP and ASA monotherapy and assigned a point score.There was a gradient of MALE risk in placebo treated patients from 0.1% to 19.7% with increasing score (p<0.0001; Figure, Top). When validated in PEGASUS-TIMI 54 and FOURIER, discrimination remained high (c-statistic of 0.81 in both datasets). A risk of 4 generally correlated to an annualized risk of MALE of ~ 1% (1.1% TRA2P-TIMI 50, 0.93% PEGASUS-TIMI 54, 1.2% FOURIER). A score <4 identified patients at low risk of MALE, whereas those with a score ≥ 4 had greater baseline risk and benefit of randomized therapy (Figure, Bottom). Conclusions: A simple risk score can identify patients at greater risk of MALE who derive greater absolute reductions with effective therapies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculationSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207