MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405537858 · doi:10.1016/j.jacadv.2024.101453

Patient Management Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

2024· review· en· W4405537858 on OpenAlexaff
Erica Wennberg, Ali Abualsaud, Mark J. Eisenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJACC Advances · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular Diseases
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityPublic Health OntarioJewish General HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPercutaneous coronary interventionMedicineCardiologyPercutaneousInternal medicineIntensive care medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a mainstay procedure for the treatment of coronary artery disease. PCI techniques have evolved considerably since the advent of PCI in 1978, and with this evolution in techniques has come changes in the best practices for patient management following PCI. The objective of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of key considerations in patient management following PCI. The long-term management of patients post-PCI should follow 3 main principles: 1) lifestyle modification and reduction of risk factors; 2) implementation of secondary prevention therapies; and 3) timely detection of restenosis. Best practices in achieving these principles include promotion of smoking cessation, regular physical activity, and a healthy diet, as well as blood pressure, diabetes mellitus, lipid, and weight management; prescription of secondary prevention therapies balancing ischemic and bleeding risk; and avoidance of routine surveillance for restenosis.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJACC AdvancesSame topicAntiplatelet Therapy and Cardiovascular DiseasesFrench-language works237,207