MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407395549 · doi:10.1093/ehjopen/oeaf012

Ischaemic and bleeding risk after ST-elevation myocardial infarction in patients with active cancer: a nationwide study

2025· article· en· W4407395549 on OpenAlex
Mohamed Dafaalla, Francesco Costa, Haibo Jia, Harindra C. Wijeysundera, Muhammad Rashid, Michelle M. Graham, Alaide Chieffo, Gary S. Mintz, Mamas A. Mamas

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity and mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersBirmingham Biomedical Research CentreDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsMedicineMyocardial infarctionInternal medicineCardiologyElevation (ballistics)Cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aims Treatment of patients with cancer presenting with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is complex given the increased risk of both thrombotic and major bleeding complications. Methods and results A nationally linked cohort of STEMI patients between January 2005 and March 2019 was obtained from the UK Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project and the UK National Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care registries. The primary outcomes were major bleeding and re-infarction at 1 year following admission with STEMI. Major bleeding was defined as bleeding events that require hospital admission. Re-infarction was defined as acute MI according to the fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. A total of 322 776 STEMI-indexed admissions were identified between January 2005 and March 2019. Of those, 7050 (2.2%) patients were diagnosed with active cancer. Cancer patients were older with more cardiovascular comorbidities. Cancer patients received invasive coronary angiography (62.2% vs. 72.7%, P < 0.001) and percutaneous coronary intervention (58.4% vs. 69.5%, P < 0.001) less often compared with patients without cancer and were less likely to be prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy (85% vs. 95.4%, P < 0.001). The incidence of major bleeding (6.5% vs. 3.5%, P < 0.001) and re-infarction (cancer 5.7%, no cancer 5.1%, P = 0.01) was higher in cancer patients at 1 year. After adjustment for differences in baseline covariates, a similar risk of re-infarction (sub-hazard ratios (SHR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.94–1.27) and a 50% increased risk of major bleeding (SHR 1.49, 95% CI 1.30–1.71) were observed in cancer patients. Conclusion Compared with non-cancer patients, cancer patients have a higher risk of major bleeding but not of re-infarction. Mitigating bleeding risk in STEMI patients with cancer is of paramount importance to improve outcomes.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.289 · 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