MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Quality of Life Outcomes With a Risk-Based Precision Testing Strategy Versus Usual Testing in Stable Patients With Suspected Coronary Disease: Results From the PRECISE Randomized Trial

2025· article· en· W4407107590 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel B. Mark, Yanhong Li, Michael G. Nanna, Michelle D. Kelsey, Melanie R. Daniels, Campbell Rogers, Manesh R. Patel, Khaula Baloch, Benjamin J.W. Chow, Kevin J. Anstrom, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, Jonathan Weir‐McCall, Gregg W. Stone, Derek S. Chew, Pamela S. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialAnginaPhysical therapyCoronary artery diseaseClinical endpointRevascularizationChest painInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The PRECISE (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization) trial compared an investigational precision diagnostic testing strategy (n=1057) with usual testing (n=1046) in patients with stable chest pain and suspected coronary artery disease. Quality of life (QOL) outcomes were a prespecified secondary end point. METHODS: We assessed QOL by structured interviews in all trial participants at baseline and 45 days, 6 months, and 12 months postrandomization. QOL assessments included angina-related QOL (19-item Seattle Angina Questionnaire [SAQ-19]), generic health status (EQ-5D), and a 4-item care satisfaction survey (at 45 days only). The prespecified primary comparison was the 6-month SAQ Summary score outcomes (scale, 0 to 100; higher scores indicate greater health status). QOL data collection rates were high, with 99% complete baseline SAQ scores and 86.5% complete at the 6-month primary comparison follow-up. All comparisons were made as randomized. RESULTS: At baseline, mean SAQ Summary scores were 70.9 in the Precision Strategy group (n=1050) and 70.4 in the Usual Testing group (n=1042). By 6 months, mean SAQ Summary scores had improved to 89.9 in the Precision Strategy group and 89.2 in the Usual Testing group, with a mean adjusted difference of 0.8 (95% CI, -0.3 to 2.0). The SAQ component scores showed similar improvement from baseline in both groups and no statistically significant or clinically meaningful differences between the 2 groups at any follow-up time point. By 6 months, 66% of patients in both groups were chest pain-free. EQ-5D visual analog scores also improved from baseline and showed no difference between groups during follow-up. Care satisfaction scores were high and similar at 45 days. CONCLUSIONS: In stable patients with symptoms suggesting coronary artery disease, angina-related and overall QOL improved substantially over the initial 6 months independent of the testing strategy assigned. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03702244.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.077
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.077
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and OutcomesSame topicCardiac Imaging and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207