MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404448964 · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2405922

Colchicine in Acute Myocardial Infarction

2024· article· en· W4404448964 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sanjit S. Jolly, Marc-André d’Entremont, Shun Fu Lee, Rajibul Mian, Jessica Tyrwhitt, Sasko Kedev, Gilles Montalescot, Jan H. Cornel, Goran Stanković, Raúl Moreno, Robert F. Storey, Timothy D. Henry, Shamir R. Mehta, Matthias Bossard, Petr Kala, Jamie Layland, Biljana Zafirovska, P.J. Devereaux, John W. Eikelboom, John A. Cairns, Binita Shah, Tej Sheth, Sanjib Kumar Sharma, Wadea Tarhuni, David Conen, Sarah Tawadros, Shahar Lavi, Salim Yusuf

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInflammasome and immune disorders
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversitySaskWaterVancouver Coastal HealthCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeHamilton Health SciencesLondon Health Sciences CentreMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
FundersNIH Clinical CenterInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthNIHR Sheffield Biomedical Research CentreSorbonne UniversitéRadboud Universitair Medisch CentrumSheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustNYU Grossman School of MedicineAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de ParisMonash UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreB.P. Koirala Institute of Health SciencesRadboud UniversiteitNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBoston Scientific Corporation
KeywordsColchicineMyocardial infarctionMedicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Inflammation is associated with adverse cardiovascular events. Data from recent trials suggest that colchicine reduces the risk of cardiovascular events. METHODS: In this multicenter trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design, we randomly assigned patients who had myocardial infarction to receive either colchicine or placebo and either spironolactone or placebo. The results of the colchicine trial are reported here. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven coronary revascularization, evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. C-reactive protein was measured at 3 months in a subgroup of patients, and safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 7062 patients at 104 centers in 14 countries underwent randomization; at the time of analysis, the vital status was unknown for 45 patients (0.6%), and this information was most likely missing at random. A primary-outcome event occurred in 322 of 3528 patients (9.1%) in the colchicine group and 327 of 3534 patients (9.3%) in the placebo group over a median follow-up period of 3 years (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.16; P = 0.93). The incidence of individual components of the primary outcome appeared to be similar in the two groups. The least-squares mean difference in C-reactive protein levels between the colchicine group and the placebo group at 3 months, adjusted according to the baseline values, was -1.28 mg per liter (95% CI, -1.81 to -0.75). Diarrhea occurred in a higher percentage of patients with colchicine than with placebo (10.2% vs. 6.6%; P<0.001), but the incidence of serious infections did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had myocardial infarction, treatment with colchicine, when started soon after myocardial infarction and continued for a median of 3 years, did not reduce the incidence of the composite primary outcome (death from cardiovascular causes, recurrent myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned ischemia-driven coronary revascularization). (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; CLEAR ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03048825.).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations260
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicInflammasome and immune disordersFrench-language works237,207