Ten-year survival benefit and appropriateness of surgical versus percutaneous revascularization in synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with Taxus and cardiac surgery randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Average treatment effects from randomized trials do not reflect the heterogeneity of an individual's response to treatment. This study evaluates the appropriate proportions of patients for coronary artery bypass grafting, or percutaneous intervention based on the predicted/observed ratio of 10-year all-cause mortality in the SYNTAX population. METHODS: The study included 1800 randomized patients and 1275 patients in the nested percutaneous (n = 198) or surgical (n = 1077) registries. The primary end point was 10-year all-cause mortality. The SYNTAX score II-2020 was validated internally in the randomized cohort and externally in the registry cohort. Proportions of patients with survival benefits from coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous intervention were determined using SYNTAX score II-2020. RESULTS: Ten-year mortality was 23.8% for coronary artery bypass grafting, 28.6% for percutaneous intervention in the randomized cohort, 27.6% for coronary artery bypass grafting and 55.4% for percutaneous intervention in the registries. In the coronary artery bypass grafting registry, the SYNTAX score II-2020 predicted 10-year mortality with helpful calibration and discrimination (C-index: 0.70, intercept: 0.00, slope: 0.76). The proportion of patients deriving a predicted survival benefit from coronary artery bypass grafting over percutaneous intervention was 82.4% (2143/2602) and 17.7% (459/2602) for the entire SYNTAX trial population, translating into a 4.7 to 1 appropriate ratio of treatment allocation to coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Choosing a revascularization modality should depend on an individual's long-term prognosis rather than average treatment effects. Additionally, patients should be informed about their predicted prognosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on clinicaltrial.gov. SYNTAXES: NCT03417050 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03417050). SYNTAX: NCT00114972 (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00114972).
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 | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; 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".