Mortality After Multivessel Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes and Acute Coronary Syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with diabetes and multivessel disease in the setting of a non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) is unknown. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare all-cause mortality between coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among patients with diabetes and NSTEMI. Methods: All patients with diabetes and multivessel disease admitted for NSTEMI in Ontario, Canada, between April 2009 and March 2020 were included. Those with previous CABG, PCI in the previous 90 days, or shock were excluded. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching was used to account for confounding. Patients who had a cardiac surgeon consultation and then received PCI were classified as being potentially ineligible for CABG. Results: = 0.002). Conclusions: While CABG was associated with reduced all-cause mortality compared to multivessel PCI in patients with diabetes and NSTEMI, CABG benefit was seen only against PCI patients potentially ineligible for CABG after receiving a preprocedure surgical consultation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".