MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Economic Outcomes With Precision Diagnostic Testing Versus Usual Testing in Stable Chest Pain: Results From the PRECISE Randomized Trial

2025· article· en· W4407107934 on OpenAlexaff
Derek S. Chew, Daniel B. Mark, Yanhong Li, Michael G. Nanna, Michelle D. Kelsey, Melanie R. Daniels, Linda Davidson‐Ray, Khaula Baloch, Campbell Rogers, Manesh R. Patel, Kevin J. Anstrom, Nick Curzen, Sreekanth Vemulapalli, Pamela S. Douglas

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Imaging and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of Alberta
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialChest painPhysical therapyDiagnostic testIntensive care medicineRadiologyEmergency medicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The PRECISE (Prospective Randomized Trial of the Optimal Evaluation of Cardiac Symptoms and Revascularization) demonstrated that a precision diagnostic strategy reduced the primary composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or catheterization without obstructive coronary artery disease by 65% in patients with nonacute chest pain compared with usual testing. Medical cost was a prespecified secondary end point. METHODS: PRECISE randomized 2103 patients between December 2018 and May 2021 to usual testing or a precision strategy that used deferred testing for the lowest risk patients (20%) and coronary computed tomographic angiography with selective computed tomography–derived fractional flow reserve for the remainder. Resource use consumption data were collected from all study participants and hospital cost data from US participants (n=1125) to estimate total medical costs. The primary and secondary economic outcomes were total costs at 12 months and at 45 days, respectively, from the US health care system perspective. The mean cost differences between the 2 strategies were reported by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: At 45 days, total costs were similar between the precision strategy and usual testing (mean difference, $182 [95% CI, −$555 to $661]). By 12 months, percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass surgery had been performed in 7.2% and 2.0% of precision strategy patients and 3.5% and 1.7% of usual testing patients, respectively. At 1 year, precision strategy costs were $5299 versus $4821 for usual testing (mean difference, $478 [95% CI, −$889 to $1437]; P =0.43). Precision care decreased mean per-patient diagnostic cost by 27% and increased mean per-patient revascularization costs by 67%. CONCLUSIONS: In the PRECISE trial, the precision strategy, a risk-based approach endorsed by current clinical practice guidelines, improved the clinical efficiency of testing and had similar costs to usual testing at 45 days and a nonsignificant $478 cost difference at 1 year. 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.128
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 score0.296
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.128
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.255 · 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