Restrictive Versus Liberal Transfusion in Patients With Type 1 or Type 2 Myocardial Infarction: A Prespecified Analysis of the MINT Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The MINT trial (Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion) raised concern for harm from a restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) and anemia. Type 1 and type 2 MI are distinct pathophysiologic entities that may respond differently to blood transfusion. This analysis sought to determine whether the effects of transfusion varied among patients with a type 1 or a type 2 MI and anemia. The authors hypothesized that the liberal transfusion strategy would be of greater benefit in type 2 than in type 1 MI. METHODS: The authors compared rates of death or MI at 30 days in patients with type 1 (n=1460) and type 2 (n=1955) MI and anemia who were randomly allocated to a restrictive (threshold, 7–8 g/dL) or a liberal (threshold, 10 g/dL) transfusion strategy. RESULTS: The primary outcome of death or MI was observed in 16% of type 1 MI and 15.4% of type 2 MI patients. The rate of death or MI was higher in patients with type 1 MI randomized to a restrictive (18.2%) versus liberal (13.8%) transfusion strategy (relative risk [RR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.04–1.67]) with no difference observed between the restrictive (15.8%) and liberal (15.1%) transfusion strategies in patients with type 2 MI (RR, 1.05 [95% CI, 0.85–1.29]). The test for a differential effect of transfusion strategy by MI type was not statistically significant ( P interaction = 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: The concern for harm with a restrictive transfusion strategy in patients with acute MI and anemia raised in the MINT primary outcome manuscript may be more apparent in patients with type 1 than type 2 MI. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02981407.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".